' 


\ 


I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Getty  Research  Institute 


https://archive.org/details/mrpunchshistoryo01grav_0 


Mn  PUNCH’S  HISTORY 
OF  MODERN  ENGLAND 


•j  ;  P  'A 


THE  RECONCILIATION: 

OR  AS  IT  OUGHT  TO  BE 
Reproduced  from  the  c.r.o.n  in  Pun ck.  IS*  M.rch.  IMS 


Mr  Punch’s  History 
of  Modern  England 


By 

CHARLES  L.  GRAVES 


In  Four  Volumes 
VOL.  I.— 1841-1857 


New  York 

FREDERICK  A.  STOKES  COMPANY 

Publishers 


Published  by  arrangement  with  the  Proprietors  of  “  Punch 


PREFACE 


THE  title  of  this  work  indicates  at  once  its  main  source  and 
its  limitations.  The  files  of  Punch  have  been  generally 
admitted  to  be  a  valuable  mine  of  information  on  the 
manners,  customs,  and  fashions  of  the  Victorian  age,  and  of 
the  wealth  of  material  thus  provided  liberal  use  has  been  made. 
But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  Punch  has  always  been  a 
London  paper,  and  that  in  so  far  as  English  life  is  reflected  in 
his  pages,  London  always  comes  first,  though  in  this  volume, 
and  especially  during  the  “Hungry  ’Forties,”  Lancashire  comes 
a  very  good  second.  For  pictures  of  provincial  society — such, 
for  example,  as  that  given  in  Cranford  or  in  the  novels  of 
Trollope — or  of  life  in  Edinburgh  or  Dublin,  the  chronicler 
of  Victorian  England  must  look  outside  Punch.  The  “country 
cousin  ”  is  not  forgotten,  but  for  the  most  part  comes  into  view 
when  he  is  on  a  visit  to  London,  not  when  he  is  on  his  native 
heath.  Yet  even  with  these  deductions  the  amount  of  material 
is  embarrassingly  rich.  And  this  is  due  not  only  to  the  multi¬ 
plicity  of  subjects  treated,  but  to  the  manner  in  which  they 
were  discussed.  Of  Punch,  in  his  early  days  at  any  rate,  the 
criticism  recently  applied  to  Victorian  writers  in  general  by  a 
writer  in  Blackwood  holds  good:  “They  had  a  great  deal  to 
say,  and  they  said  it  sometimes  in  too  loud  a  voice.  Such  was 
their  virtue,  to  which  their  vice  was  akin.  Their  vice  was  the 
vice  of  rhetoric.  They  fell  to  the  temptation  of  many  words. 
They  wrote  too  often  as  the  tub-thumper  speaks,  without  much 
self-criticism  and  with  a  too  fervent  desire  to  be  heard  imme¬ 
diately  and  at  all  costs.”  In  the  'forties  Punch  doubled  the 
roles  of  jester  and  political  pamphleteer,  and  in  the  latter 


v 


Preface 


capacity  indulged  in  a  great  deal  of  vehement  partisan  rhetoric. 
The  loudest,  the  most  passionate  and  moving  as  well  as  the 
least  judicial  of  his  spokesmen  was  Douglas  Jerrold.  The 
choice  of  dividing  lines  between  periods  must  always  be  some¬ 
what  artificial,  but  I  was  confirmed  in  my  decision  to  end  the 
first  volume  with  the  year  of  the  Indian  Mutiny  by  the  fact 
that  it  coincided  with  the  death  of  Douglas  Jerrold,  who  from 
1841  to  1857  had,  more  than  any  other  writer,  been  responsible 
for  the  Radical  and  humanitarian  views  expressed  in  Punch. 

My  task  would  have  been  greatly  simplified  by  the  exclusion 
of  politics  altogether.  But  to  do  that  would  have  involved  the 
neglect  of  what  is,  after  all,  perhaps  the  most  interesting  and 
in  many  ways  the  most  honourable  phase  of  Punch’s  history, 
his  championship  of  the  poor  and  oppressed,  and  his  efforts 
to  bridge  the  gap  between  the  “Two  Nations” — the  phrase 
which  was  used  and  justified  in  the  finest  passage  of  Disraeli’s 
Sybil,  and  which  I  have  chosen  as  the  title  for  the  first  part 
of  the  present  volume.  To  write  a  Social  History  of  England 
at  any  time  without  reference  to  the  political  background  would 
be  difficult;  it  is  practically  impossible  in  a  chronicle  based 
on  Punch  in  the  ’forties  and  ’fifties.  In  the  second  part  I 
have  endeavoured  to  redress  the  balance.  Here  one  recognizes 
the  advantages  of  Punch’s  London  outlook  in  dealing  with  the 
Court  and  fashion  and  the  acute  contrasts  furnished  between 
Mayfair  on  the  one  hand  and  the  suburbs  and  slums  on  the 
other. 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  represent  Punch  as  in¬ 
fallible  whether  as  a  recorder,  a  critic,  or  a  prophet.  He  was 
often  wrong,  unjust,  and  even  cruel — notably  in  his  view 
of  Peel  and  Lincoln,  and  in  his  conduct  of  the  “No  Popery  ” 
crusade — though  he  seldom  failed  to  make  amends,  even  to 
the  extent  of  standing  in  a  white  sheet  over  Lincoln’s  grave. 
But  the  majority  of  these  confessions  took  the  form  of  post- 


vi 


Preface 


humous  tributes.  As  for  the  gradual  cooling  of  Punch's 
democratic  ardour,  that  may  be  attributed  partly  to  the  removal 
or  remedying  of  abuses  by  legislation  and  the  education  of 
public  opinion ;  partly  to  the  fact  that  newspapers  follow  the 
rule  of  individuals,  and  tend  to  become  more  moderate  as  they 
grow  older.  The  great  value  of  Punch  resides  in  the  fact  that 
it  provides  us  with  a  history  of  the  Victorians  written  by  them¬ 
selves.  This  is  no  guarantee  of  the  accuracy  of  the  facts  re¬ 
corded.  We  have  had  painful  proof  in  recent  years  that  con¬ 
temporary  evidence,  when  based  on  hearsay,  even  though 
written  down  red-hot  in  a  diary,  is,  to  put  it  mildly,  incapable 
of  corroboration.  But,  as  reflecting  the  nature  and  mood  of 
the  writer,  contemporary  evidence  is  always  interesting.  My 
aim  has  been  to  supply  a  critical  commentary,  and,  where 
possible,  to  verify  or  correct  the  statements  or  judgments  re¬ 
corded  in  Punch.  Acknowledgments  of  the  various  authorities 
consulted  will  be  found  in  the  footnotes,  but  I  should  like 
to  express  my  special  indebtedness  to  the  Dictionary  of 
National  Biography ;  to  the  New  English  Dictionary ;  to  The 
Political  History  of  England,  by  Sir  Sidney  Low  and  Mr. 
Lloyd  Sanders;  to  Mr.  C.  R.  Fay’s  Life  and  Labour  in  the 
Nineteenth  Century;  and,  where  the  inner  or  domestic  history 
of  the  paper  is  concerned,  to  Mr.  M.  H.  Spielmann’s  History 
of  Punch. 

The  work  of  preparing  this  volume  has  been  greatly 
lightened  by  the  encouragement  and  practical  help  of  Mr.  Philip 
Agnew,  the  managing  director,  and  Mr.  Heather,  the  secretary, 
of  Messrs.  Bradbury,  Agnew  and  Co. ;  by  Miss  Berry’s 
transcription  of  extracts;  and,  above  all,  by  the  research,  the 
advice  and  suggestions  of  Miss  M.  R.  Walpole,  the  assistant 
librarian  of  the  Athenaeum  Club. 


CHARLES  L.  GRAVES. 


CONTENTS 


PART  I 

THE  TWO  NATIONS 


PAGE 

Punch  and  the  People . 3 

Chartism  . . 49 

Machinery  and  Money-making  .....  61 

Education . 81 

Religious  Controversy  ......  91 

From  Peace  to  War  .......  112 


ENTR’ACTE 

London  in  the  Mid-Nineteenth  Century  .  .  .141 

PART  II 

THE  SOCIAL  FABRIC 


The  Court . 165 

The  Old  Nobility . 201 

Society— Exclusive,  Genteel,  and  Shabby  Genteel  .  208 

The  Liberal  Professions  ......  232 

Women  in  the  ’Forties  and  ’Fifties  ....  243 

Fashion  in  Dress  .......  258 

The  Drama,  Opera,  Music,  and  the  Tine  Arts  .  .  271 

Personalities . 304 


ix 


PART  I 


THE  TWO  NATIONS 


Mr  PUNCH’S 

History  of  Modern  England 

PUNCH  AND  THE  PEOPLE 


O  !  fair  and  fresh  the  early  spring 
Her  budding  wreath  displays, 

To  all  the  wide  earth  promising 
The  joy  of  harvest  days  ; 

Yet  many  a  waste  of  wavy  gold 
Hath  bent  above  the  dead ; 

Then  let  the  living  share  it  too — - 
Give  us  our  daily  bread. 

Of  old  a  nation’s  cry  shook  down 
The  sword-defying  wall, 

And  ours  may  reach  the  mercy-seat, 

Though  not  the  lordly  hall. 

God  of  the  Corn  !  shall  man  restrain 
Thy  blessings  freely  shed? 

O  !  look  upon  the  isles  at  last — 

Give  us  our  daily  bread. 

IT  is  fitting  that  a  chronicle  of  social  life  in  England  in 
the  Victorian  age,  drawn  in  its  essentials  from  the  pages 
of  Punch,  should  begin  with  the  People.  For  Punch 
began  as  a  radical  and  democratic  paper,  a  resolute  champion 
of  the  poor,  the  desolate  and  the  oppressed,  and  the  early 
volumes  abound  in  evidences  of  the  miseries  of  the  “Hungry 
’Forties  ”  and  in  burning  pleas  for  their  removal.  The  strange 
mixture  of  jocularity  with  intense  earnestness  which  confronts 

3 


Mr.  Punch' s  Hi  stow  of  Modern  England 


us  on  every  page  was  due  to  the  characters  and  antecedents 
of  the  men  who  founded  and  wrote  for  the  paper  at  its  outset. 
Of  at  least  three  of  them  it  might  be  said  that  they  were 
humanitarians  first  and  humorists  afterwards.  Henry  May- 
hew,  one  of  the  originators  and  for  a  short  time  joint-editor, 
was  “  the  first  to  strike  out  the  line  of  philanthropic  journalism 
which  takes  the  poor  of  London  as  its  theme,”  and  in  his 
articles  in  the  Morning  Chronicle  and  his  elaborate  work  on 
London  Labour  and  the  London  Poor,  which  occupied  him 
intermittently  for  the  best  part  of  twenty  years,  showed  him¬ 
self  a  true  forerunner  of  Charles  Booth.  His  versatility  was 
amazing.  The  writer  of  the  obituary  notice  of  him  in  the 
Athenceum  observes  that  “it  would  not  be  difficult  to  show 
him  as  a  scientific  writer,  a  writer  of  semi-religious  biography, 
and  an  outrageous  joker  at  one  and  the  same  time.”  Another 
member  of  the  original  staff  was  Gilbert  a  Beckett,  who  crowded 
an  extraordinary  amount  of  work  into  his  short  life  as  leader- 
writer  on  The  Times,  comic  journalist,  dramatist,  Poor 
Law  Commissioner  and  Metropolitan  Magistrate.  It  was 
a  Beckett’s  report  on  the  scandal  connected  with  the  Andover 
Union — pronounced  by  the  Home  Secretary,  Buller,  to  be  one 
of  the  best  ever  presented  to  Parliament — that  led  to  important 
alterations  in  the  Statute  book,  and  secured  for  him,  at  the 
age  of  thirty-eight,  his  appointment  as  Metropolitan  Police 
Magistrate.  Thackeray’s  references  to  “h  Beckett  the  beak” 
are  frequent  and  affectionate,  and  on  his  death  in  1856  a  noble 
tribute  was  paid  him  in  the  pages  of  the  journal  he  had 
served  from  its  opening  number.  “As  a  magistrate,  Gilbert 
a  Beckett,  by  his  wise,  calm,  humane  administration  of  the 
law,  gave  a  daily  rebuke  to  a  too  ready  belief  that  the  faithful 
exercise  of  the  highest  and  gravest  social  duties  is  incompatible 
with  the  sportiveness  of  literary  genius.”  These  words  were 
penned  by  Douglas  Jerrold,  who  died  within  a  year  of  his 
friend,  and  was  the  most  ardent  and  impassioned  humanitarian 
of  the  three.  By  the  irony  of  fate  Jerrold  is  chiefly  remembered 
for  his  sledge-hammer  retorts  :  the  industrious  and  ingenious 
playwright  is  little  more  than  a  name;  the  brilliant  publicist 
and  reformer,  the  friend  and  associate  of  Chartists,  the  life- 

4 


The  Founders  of  “ Punch  ” 


long  champion  of  the  under-dog  is  forgotten.  Gilbert  a  Beckett 
and  Henry  May  hew  had  both  been  at  Westminster.  Their 
people  were  well-to-do.  Douglas  Jerrold  had  known  both 
poverty  and  privation,  and  his  education  was  largely  acquired 
in  a  printer’s  office.  His  brief  service  in  the  Navy  was  long 
enough  to  make  him  a  strenuous  advocate  of  the  claims  of  the 
lower  deck  to  more  humane  treatment.  He  did  not  believe 
that  harsh  discipline  and  flogging  were  necessary  to  the 
efficiency  of  either  Service.  As  a  boy  he  had  seen  something 
of  the  human  wreckage  of  war,  and  the  spectacle  had  cured 
him  for  ever  of  any  illusions  as  to  militarism.  But  his  dis¬ 
trust  of  Emperors,  Dictators  and  the  “King  business”  gener¬ 
ally — -always  excepting  Constitutional  Monarchy — was  so  pro¬ 
nounced  that  any  interference  on  their  part  was  enough  to 
convert  him  into  a  Jingo.  How  far  he  was  from  being  a 
pacificist  may  be  judged  from  the  temper  of  Punch  in  the 
Crimean  War,  its  advocacy  of  ruthlessness  as  the  best  means 
of  shortening  the  hostilities,  and  its  bitter  criticism  of  Lord 
Aberdeen  and  Mr.  Gladstone,  and  above  all  of  Cobden  and 
Bright,  for  their  alleged  pro-Russian  sympathies.  In  the 
’forties  Cobden  and  Bright  were  the  leaders  of  that  group  of 
“middle-class  men  of  enthusiasm  and  practical  sagacity  ” 
which  directed  the  Free  Trade  movement,  and  they  had  been 
supported  by  Punch  in  the  campaign  against  the  Corn  Laws. 
Douglas  Jerrold  was  the  spear-head  of  Punch’s  attacks  on 
Protection,  Bumbledom,  unreformed  Corporations,  Cant  and 
Snobbery,  the  cruelty,  the  inequality,  the  expense  and  the 
delays  of  the  Law.  He  might  be  described  as  being  violently 
and  vituperatively  on  the  side  of  the  angels.  The  freedom 
of  his  invective,  notably  in  the  articles  signed  “Q,”  is  beyond 
belief.  Compared  with  his  handling  of  ducal  landlords,  the 
most  drastic  criticisms  of  Mr.  Lloyd  George  in  his  earlier 
days  are  as  water  to  wine.  At  all  costs  Jerrold  was  determined 
that  the  Tory  dogs  should  not  have  the  best  of  it. 

Biographies  of  the  Punch  staff  do  not  fall  within  the  scope  of 
this  chronicle,  but  some  knowledge  of  the  record  and  the  tem¬ 
perament  of  the  men  who  gave  the  paper  its  peculiar  quality  for 
many  years  is  essential  to  a  proper  understanding  of  its  influence 

5 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


on  public  opinion.  They  were  humorous  men,  but  they  could 
be  terribly  in  earnest,  and  they  had  abundant  excuse  for  their 
seriousness.  1  hey  could  not  forgive  the  Duke  of  Wellington 
when  on  August  24,  1841,  he  declared  that  England  was  “the 
only  country  in  which  the  poor  man,  if  only  sober  and  in¬ 
dustrious,  was  quite  certain  of  acquiring  a  competency.”  They 
regarded  it  as  “a  heartless  insult  thrown  in  the  idle  teeth  of 
famishing  thousands,  the  ghosts  of  the  victims  of  the  Corn 
Laws.  ...  If  rags  and  starvation  put  up  their  prayer  to  the 
present  Ministry,  what  must  be  the  answer  delivered  by  the 
Duke  of  Wellington?  ‘Ye  are  drunken  and  lazy!’”  A 
few  days  later  Mr.  Fielden,  M.P.,  moved  “that  the  distress 
of  the  working  people  at  the  present  time  is  so  great  throughout 
the  country,  but  particularly  in  the  manufacturing  districts, 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  this  House  to  make  instant  inquiry 
into  the  cause  and  extent  of  such  distress,  and  devise  means 
to  remedy  it ;  and  at  all  events  to  vote  no  supply  of  money 
until  such  inquiry  be  made.”  The  motion  was  negatived  by 
149  to  41,  and  a  Tory  morning  paper  complacently  observed 
that  “there  has  been  for  the  last  few  days  a  smile  on  the  face 
of  every  well-dressed  gentleman,  and  of  every  well-to-do 
artisan,  who  wend  their  way  along  the  streets  of  this  vast 
metropolis.  It  is  caused  by  the  Opposition  exhibition  of  Friday 
night  in  the  House  of  Commons.”  The  comment  on  this 
“spiteful  imbecility”  is  not  to  be  wondered  at:  “Toryism 
believes  only  in  the  well-dressed  and  the  well-to-do.  Purple 
and  fine  linen  are  the  instrumental  parts  of  her  religion.  Her 
faith  is  in  glossy  raiment  and  a  full  belly.”  The  Home 
Secretary  stated  in  reply  to  a  question,  about  a  year  later,  that 
the  keepers  of  St.  James’s  Park  were  particularly  ordered 
“not  to  admit  persons  who  wore  fustian  jackets,”  an  order 
which  prompted  Punch  to  remark  that  in  Merry  England 
“labour  was  ignominy,  and  your  only  man  the  man  with 
white  hands  and  filbert  nails.”  A  writer  in  the  Examiner 
so  recently  as  1861  could  remember  the  time  when  the  sentries 
in  St.  James’s  Park  used,  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  accord¬ 
ing  to  their  orders,  to  dismount  women  from  their  pattens, 
and  make  them  trudge  on  with  them  in  their  hands.  It  is 

6 


THE  POOR  MAN’S  FRIEND 
(The  Hungry  ’Forties) 


7 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


an  old  story;  as  old  as  the  days  of  Ahasuerus,  when  “no  one 
might  enter  the  King’s  gate  clothed  with  sackcloth.”  Punch 
never  wearied  of  bringing  home  to  his  readers  these  abrupt 
contrasts  of  wealth  and  poverty.  The  people  were  crying  for 
bread  and  Parliament  had  been  occupied  in  carrying  the 
Ventilation  of  the  House  Bill  and  the  Royal  Kitchen  Garden 
Bill.  The  amount  voted  for  the  Royal  Stables  at  Windsor 
was  considerably  more  than  three  times  what  was  obtained 
from  Parliament  for  the  education  of  the  poor.  The  Times 
of  December  2,  1841  quoted  from  the  Sporting  Magazine 
an  account  of  the  accommodation  provided  for  the  Prince 
Consort’s  beagles  and  Her  Majesty’s  dogs — sleeping  beds, 
compartments  paved  with  asphalt,  dry  and  clean,  with  roomy 
and  healthy  green  yards;  and  boiling  and  distemper  houses 
detached  from  the  other  portions  of  the  building — and  bracketed 
with  it  the  sworn  evidence  of  the  late  matron  and  medical 
attendant  at  the  Sevenoaks  Union.  The  lying-in  ward  was 
small  and  always  looked  dirty.  “There  had  been  six  women 
there  at  one  time  :  two  were  confined  in  one  bed.  It  was 
impossible  entirely  to  shut  out  the  infection.  I  have  known 
fifteen  children  sleep  in  two  beds.”  Six  young  girls,  inmates 
of  the  Lambeth  workhouse,  were  charged  about  the  same 
time  with  breaking  several  panes  of  glass.  In  their  defence 
they  complained  that  they  had  been  treated  worse  in  the  work- 
house  than  they  would  be  in  prison,  and  said  that  it  was  to 
cause  their  committal  to  the  latter  place  they  broke  the  windows. 
Strange  reading  this  in  a  comic  journal,  yet  paralleled  by 
similar  extracts  week  after  week  and  month  after  month.  The 
birth  of  the  Prince  of  Wales  was  chronicled  in  the  same  issue 
of  the  daily  papers  which  contained  the  “luscious  history  ” 
of  the  Lord  Mayor’s  dinner :  — 

Oh,  men  of  Paisley — good  folks  of  Bolton — what  promise  for  ye 
is  here !  Turkeys,  capons,  sirloins,  asparagus,  pheasants,  pine¬ 
apples,  Savoy  cakes,  Chantilly  baskets,  mince-pies,  preserved  ginger, 
brandy  cherries,  a  thousand  luscious  cakes  that  “the  sense  aches 
at !  ”  What  are  all  these  gifts  of  plenty  but  a  glad  promise  that 
in  the  time  of  the  “sweetest  young  prince,”  on  the  birthday  of 
that  Prince  just  vouchsafed  to  us,  all  England  will  be  a  large  Lord 
Mayor’s  table  ! 


8 


Fleshftots  and  Famine 


When  the  question  of  the  title  of  the  next  King  was  dis¬ 
cussed,  Punch  boldly  suggested  Lazarus:  — 

Let  Henry  the  Fifth  have  his  Agincourt;  let  him,  in  history,  sit 
upon  a  throne  of  Frenchmen’s  skulls;  our  LAZARUS  THE  FIRST 
shall  heal  the  wounds  of  wretchedness — -shall  gather  bloodless  laurels 
in  the  hospital  and  workhouse— ^his  ermine  and  purple  shall  make 
fellowship  with  rags  of  linsey-wolsey — he  shall  be  a  king  enthroned 
and  worshipped  in  the  hearts  of  the  indigent ! 

LAZARUS  THE  FIRST!  There  is  hope  in  the  very  sound  for 
the  wretched  !  There  is  Christian  comfort  to  all  men  in  the  very 
syllables  !  By  giving  such  a  name  to  the  greatest  king  of  the  earth, 
there  is  a  shadowing  forth  and  a  promise  of  glorification  to  the 
beggars  in  eternity.  Poverty  and  sores  are  anointed — tatters  are 
invested  with  regality — man  in  his  most  abject  and  hopeless  condition 
is  shown  his  rightful  equality  with  the  bravest  of  the  earth — royalty 
and  beggary  meet  and  embrace  each  other  in  the  embrace  of 
fraternity. 

O  ye  thousands  famished  in  cellars !  O  ye  multitudes  with 
hunger  and  cold  biting  with  “dragon’s  tooth”  your  very  vitals! 
shout,  if  you  can  find  breath  enough,  “  Long  live  Lazarus  !  ” 

In  those  days  there  was  a  “Pauper’s  Corner”  in  Punch, 
in  which  the  cry  of  the  people  found  frequent  and  touching 
utterance.  We  have  quoted  from  “The  Prayer  of  the  People  ” 
as  a  heading  to  this  chapter.  Another  short  poem  deserves 
to  be  rescued  from  these  old  files,  and  added  to  the  lyrics 
inspired  by  the  Anti-Corn  Law  movement :  — 

Disease  and  want  are  sitting  by  my  hearth — 

The  world  hath  left  me  nothing  of  its  good  ! 

The  land  hath  not  been  stricken  by  a  dearth, 

And  yet  I  am  alone  and  wanting  food. 

The  sparrow  on  the  housetops  o’er  the  earth 
Doth  find  its  sustenance,  and  surely  HE 

Who  gave  the  mighty  universe  its  birth 

Would  never  love  the  wild  bird  more  than  me. 

Punch  had  no  illusions  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Chartist 
movement,  as  may  be  gathered  from  his  comments  on  the 
presentation  of  the  Great  Petition  in  1842.  There  might,  he 
owned,  be  dangerous  demagogues  who  offered  evil  counsel,  but 

9 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


the  Chartists  themselves  had  a  degree  of  intelligence,  a  power 
of  concentration,  a  knowledge  of  the  details  of  public  business, 
heretofore  unknown  to  great  popular  combinations  of  dis¬ 
sentients  :  — 

There  are  among-  the  Chartists  hard-headed  logicians — men  keenly 
alive  to  their  sufferings,  and  what  is  more,  soundly  schooled  as  to  the 
causes  of  them.  We  grant  that  their  petition  presented  to  Parliament 
contained  many  follies,  very  many  extravagances — that  it  prayed  for 
what  the  timidity  of  poverty  will  call  revolutionary  measures ;  but  is 
it  not  an  axiom  in  politics,  that  to  get  even  a  little  it  is  necessary  to 
ask  a  great  deal? 

We  only  call  upon  Toryism,  or  Whiggism  either,  each  to  show 
us  its  army  of  3,000,000  of  spotless  politicians.  But  we  contend 
that  the  Chartists  are  foully  maligned  when  they  are  branded  as 
thieves  and  spoilers.  It  is  an  old  cry  that  property  has  its  rights ; 
it  has  been  added — and  well  added — that  property  has  also  its  duties. 
To  these  let  us  subjoin — property  has  also  its  cowardice. 

Inquiries  and  investigations  into  the  condition  of  agricul¬ 
tural  labourers  and  of  artisans  were  already  bringing  to  light 
many  disquieting  facts.  The  physical  destitution  and  spiritual 
forlorn  ness  of  the  workers  in  the  Midlands  were  painfully  illus¬ 
trated  in  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Horne  on  the  condition  of  the 
operatives  of  Wolverhampton  :  — 

I  have  entered  the  houses  and  hovels  of  journeymen  locksmiths 
and  keymakers  indiscriminately  and  unexpectedly,  and  seen  the 
utmost  destitution ;  no  furniture  in  the  room  below  but  a  broken 
board  for  a  table,  and  a  piece  of  plank  laid  across  bricks  for  a  seat ; 
with  the  wife  hungry — almost  crying  with  hunger — and  in  rags,  yet 
the  floor  was  perfectly  clean.  I  have  gone  upstairs,  and  seen  a  bed 
on  the  floor  of  a  room  seven  feet  long  by  six  feet  high  at  one  side, 
but  slanting  down  to  nothing,  like  a  wedge,  where  a  husband,  his 
wife  and  three  children  slept,  and  with  no  other  article  in  the  room 
of  any  kind  w-hatever  except  the  bed.  .  .  .  William  Benton — 

“Thinks  that’s  his  name;  can’t  spell  it  rightly.  Age,  don’t  know 
justly — mother  says  he’s  turned  eighteen.  Can’t  read  or  write;  can 
tell  some  of  his  letters.  Goes  to  a  Sunday  school  sometimes.  Is  of 
the  Baptist  school  religion,  whatever  that  is.  Never  heard  of 
Moses ;  never  heard  of  St.  Paul.  Has  heard  of  Christ ;  knows  who 
Jesus  Christ  was — he  was  Adam.  Doesn’t  care  much  about  going 
to  school  if  he  could 


IO 


The  Song  of  the  Shirt 


You  will  find  poor  girls  who  have  never  sung  or  danced;  never 
seen  a  dance ;  never  read  a  book  that  made  them  laugh ;  never  seen 
a  violet  or  a  primrose  or  other  flowers ;  and  others  whose  only  idea 
of  a  green  field  was  derived  from  having  been  stung  by  a  nettle. 

The  Commission  which  had  been  engaged  in  learning  the 
exact  conditions  of  all  the  women  and  children  employed  in 
agriculture  in  England  suggested  to  P^lnch  an  imaginary  report 
of  an  inquiry  into  the  state  of  the  aristocracy,  and  the  moral 
condition,  employment,  health,  diet,  etc.,  of  the  residents  in 
Belgrave  Square,  most  of  the  ladies  examined  being  over¬ 
worked  by  violent  dancing  in  overheated  rooms.  Sweating 
in  the  cheap  clothes  trade  was  already  attracting  the  notice 
of  reformers,  and  Punch  w^as  on  the  warpath  when  a  Jew  slop- 
seller  prosecuted  a  poor  widow  with  two  children  for  pawning 
articles  which  she  had  to  make  up  for  him.  She  got  7d.  a 
pair  for  making  up  trousers,  and  earned  7s.  a  week.  It  was 
this  episode,  exposed  in  the  verses  “Moses  and  Co.,”  which 
paved  the  way  for  Hood’s  immortal  “Song  of  the  Shirt,”  the 
greatest  poem,  the  most  noble  contribution  that  ever  appeared 
in  the  pages  of  Punch.  It  was  printed  in  the  Christmas  number 
of  1843,  and  dwarfed  all  the  other  contributions  to  insignifi¬ 
cance  :  — 


THE  SONG  OF  THE  SHIRT 

With  fingers  weary  and  worn, 

With  eyelids  heavy  and  red, 

A  woman  sat  in  unwomanly  rags, 

Plying  her  needle  and  thread — 

Stitch  !  stitch  !  stitch  ! 

In  poverty,  hunger  and  dirt, 

And  still  with  a  voice  of  dolorous  pitch 
She  sang  the  “Song  of  the  Shirt.” 

“Work!  work!  work! 

While  the  cock  is  crowing  aloof  ! 
And  work — work — work, 

Till  the  stars  shine  through  the  roof ! 
It’s  O  !  to  be  a  slave 

Along  with  the  barbarous  Turk, 


II 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


Where  woman  has  never  a  soul  to  save, 

If  this  is  Christian  work  ! 

“  Work — work — work 

Till  the  brain  begins  to  swim; 

Work — work — work 

Till  the  eyes  are  heavy  and  dim  ! 

Seam  and  gusset  and  band, 

Band  and  gusset  and  seam, 

Till  over  the  buttons  I  fall  asleep, 

And  sew  them  on  in  a  dream  ! 

“O  men,  with  sisters  dear! 

O  men,  with  mothers  and  wives  ! 

It  is  not  linen  you’re  wearing  out, 

But  human  creatures’  lives  ! 

Stitch — stitch — stitch, 

In  poverty,  hunger  and  dirt, 

Sewing  at  once,  with  a  double  thread, 

A  shroud  as  well  as  a  shirt. 

“But  why  do  I  talk  of  Death, 

That  phantom  of  grisly  bone? 

I  hardly  fear  his  terrible  shape, 

It  seems  so  like  my  own — 

It  seems  so  like  my  own, 

Because  of  the  fasts  I  keep ; 

Oh  God,  that  bread  should  be  so  dear, 
And  flesh  and  blood  so  cheap  ! 

“  Work — work — work  ! 

My  labour  never  flags ; 

And  what  are  its  wages?  A  bed  of  straw, 
A  crust  of  bread — and  rags. 

That  shatter’d  roof — and  this  naked  floor — 
A  table— a  broken  chair — 

And  a  wall  so  blank,  my  shadow  I  thank 
For  sometimes  falling  there  ! 

“  Work — work — work  ! 

From  weary  chime  to  chime, 

W  o  rk — work — wo  rk — 

As  prisoners  work  for  crime  ! 


12 


The  Song  of  the  Shirt 


Band  and  gusset  and  seam, 

Seam  and  gusset  and  band, 

Till  the  heart  is  sick  and  the  brain  benumb’d, 

As  well  as  the  weary  hand. 

“  Work — work — work 

In  the  dull  December  light, 

And  work — work — work 
When  the  weather  is  warm  and  bright ; 

While  underneath  the  eaves 
The  brooding  swallows  cling 
As  if  to  show  me  their  sunny  backs 
And  twit  me  with  the  spring. 

“  Oh  !  but  to  breathe  the  breath 

Of  the  cowslip  and  primrose  sweet — 

With  the  sky  above  my  head, 

And  the  grass  beneath  my  feet ; 

For  only  one  short  hour 
To  feel  as  I  used  to  feel, 

Before  I  knew  the  woes  of  want 
And  the  walk  that  costs  a  meal ! 

“Oh,  but  for  one  short  hour! 

A  respite  however  brief ; 

No  blessed  leisure  for  love  or  hope, 

But  only  time  for  grief ! 

A  little  weeping  would  ease  my  heart, 

But  in  their  briny  bed 
My  tears  must  stop,  for  every  drop 
Hinders  needle  and  thread  !  ” 

With  fingers  weary  and  worn, 

With  eyelids  heavy  and  red, 

A  woman  sat  in  unwomanly  rags 
Plying  her  needle  and  thread — 

Stitch  !  stitch  !  stitch  ! 

In  poverty,  hunger  and  dirt, 

And  still  with  a  voice  of  dolorous  pitch, 

Would  that  its  tone  could  reach  the  rich  ! 

She  sang  this  “Song  of  the  Shirt.” 

The  story  of  “The  Song  of  the  Shirt  ”  is  well  told  by 
Mr.  M.  H.  Spielmann  in  his  History  of  “Punch.”  Mark 

13 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


Lemon  proved  himself  a  great  editor  by  deciding  to  publish 
the  poem  against  the  expressed  opinions  of  bis  colleagues, 
who  thought  it  unsuitable  for  a  comic  journal,  and  also  by 
bis  omitting  the  one  weak  verse  in  the  original  MS.  Strange 
to  say,  the  poem  does  not  appear  in  the  index.  The  sequel 


PIN  MONEY 

may  be  found  in  Peel’s  correspondence,  and  does  honour  to 
a  statesman  who,  while  he  lived,  received  scant  justice  from 
Punch.  Though  the  impact  of  Hood’s  burning  verses  on 
public  opinion  was  immense  and  abiding,  Hood  himself  a  year 
later  was  dying  in  penury,  of  consumption.  On  November  16, 
1844,  Peel  wrote  him  a  letter  expressing  admiration  for  his 
work,  and  offering  him  a  pension.  “I  am  not  conferring  a 

14 


Sir  Robert  Peel  and  Hood 


private  obligation  upon  you,  but  am  fulfilling  the  intentions 
of  the  Legislature,  which  has  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the 
Crown  a  certain  sum  (miserable  indeed  in  amount)  in  recog¬ 
nition  of  public  claims  on  the  bounty  of  the  Crown.”  All 
he  asked  in  return  was  that  Hood  would  give  him  the  oppor- 


NEEDLE  MONEY 


tunity  of  making  his  personal  acquaintance.  That  was  im¬ 
possible  owing  to  the  state  of  Hood’s  health.  Mrs.  Hood 
wrote  on  January  14,  1845,  to  beg  for  prompt  assistance  : 
Hood  was  dangerously  ill  and  creditors  were  pressing.  Peel 
sent  the  at  once,  and  on  February  17  Hood  wrote  to 

thank  him  “with  all  the  sincerity  of  a  dying  man  ”  and  to 
bid  him  a  respectful  farewell.  He  could  write  no  more,  though 

15 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


he  had  wished  to  write  one  more  paper.  Then  follow  these 
memorable  words,  even  more  needed  now  than  they  were 
seventy-five  years  ago  :  — 

Certain  classes,  at  the  poles  of  society,  are  already  too  far 
asunder.  It  should  be  the  duty  of  our  writers  to  draw  them  nearer 
by  kindly  attraction,  not  to  aggravate  existing  repulsions  and  place 
a  wider  moral  gulf  between  rich  and  poor,  with  hate  on  one  side 
and  fear  on  the  other.  But  I  am  too  weak  for  this  task,  the  last  I 
had  set  myself.  It  is  death  that  stops  my  pen,  you  see,  not  a 
pension.  God  bless  you,  sir,  and  prosper  all  your  measures  for  the 
benefit  of  my  beloved  country. 

Hood  died  on  May  3,  1845,  and  was  buried  in  Kensal 
Green,  but  more  than  seven  years  later  no  tombstone  marked 
his  resting-place,  and  Punch  was  moved  to  ask  :  — 

If  marble  mark  the  soldier-statesman’s  grave, 

If  monuments  adorn  his  place  of  sleep 

Whose  hand  struck  off  the  fetters  from  the  slave, 

And  his  who  sought  out  woe  in  dungeons  deep, 

Did  he  not  fight  for  Toil’s  sad  sons  and  daughters? 

Was  not  his  voice  loud  for  the  worker’s  right? 

Was  he  not  potent  to  arrest  the  slaughters 
Of  Capital  and  Labour’s  desperate  fight? 

Eventually  a  tombstone  was  erected,  bearing  the  words : 
“He  sang  the  Song  of  the  Shirt,”  but  the  pension  continued 
to  his  widow  lapsed  on  her  death  a  year  later.  A  sum  of  £800, 
collected  by  public  subscription,  was  all  that  was  available 
for  the  children,  Lord  John  Russell,  then  Premier,  having 
found  himself  unable  to  extend  the  pension  for  their  benefit, 
at  a  time  when,  as  Punch  reminded  him,  the  Duchess  of 
Inverness,  widow  of  die  Duke  of  Sussex,  was  drawing  a  pension 
of  .£1,000  a  year.  “The  Song  of  the  Shirt”  rang  through 
the  land,  but  it  did  not  end  the  hardships  of  the  sweated 
sempstress.  Within  a  year  Punch  was  moved  to  indignation 
by  the  story  of  Esther  Pierce,  paid  6d.  for  embroidering  eighty 
blossoms  on  a  silk  shawl,  and  charged  with  pawning  the  goods 
of  her  employer.  In  1848,  under  the  heading  “The  Cheap 

16 


The  Duke  of  Norfolk' s  Panacea 


Shirt  Market,”  we  read  of  a  woman  prosecuted  on  a  similar 
charge,  who  was  paid  2S.  6d.  a  dozen  for  making  up  shirts, 
or  2^d.  apiece,  and  on  these  earnings  supported  herself,  two 
children  and  a  husband  out  of  work.  As  late  as  1859  the 
sweated  shirt  makers  were  still  receiving  only  4s.  6d.  a  dozen. 
No  wonder  is  it  that  when  the  movement  in  favour  of  cottage 
gardens  was  frowned  upon  in  some  quarters  on  the  ground 
that  flowers  here  were  “out  of  place,”  Punch  retorted  with  the 
bitter  jibe  :  “What  has  the  labourer  to  do  with  stocks  but  sit 
in  them  ?  ” 

No  wonder  again  that  a  legal  pillory  of  harsh  sentences 
was  a  constant  feature  of  his  pages  in  the  ’forties  and  ’fifties. 
A  humane  magistrate  who  refused  in  1845  to  hear  a  charge  of 
wood-stealing  from  a  hedge  brought  against  a  man  earning 
7s.  a  week — the  common  rate  at  the  time  for  agricultural 
labourers — stated  from  the  Bench  that  he  knew  of  good  hands 
in  Warwickshire  who  were  earning  only  3s.  and  3s.  iod.  a 
week.  Meat  was  a  luxury  :  only  the  elders  got  bacon  :  the 
children  potatoes  and  salt :  bread  was  iod.  a  loaf.  Yet  this 
was  the  time  when  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  seriously  proposed 
that  the  poor  should  eke  out  their  meagre  fare  by  the  use  of 
curry  powder,1  a  suggestion  that  recalls  the  historic  comment 
of  the  French  lady,  shortly  before  the  Revolution,  on  hearing 
that  the  peasantry  had  no  bread,  “Then  why  don’t  they  eat 
cake?”  Piinch  dealt  faithfully  with  this  ducal  gaffe  under 
the  heading,  “A  Real  Blessing  to  Landlords”:  — 

The  genuine  Anti-Appetitive  Curry  Powder,  strongly  recom¬ 
mended  by  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  is  the  labourer’s  only  true  substitute 
for  bread  and  meat.  It  possesses  the  singular  property  of  deluding 
the  empty  stomach  into  a  sense  of  fullness,  and  is  calculated  to 
relieve  those  distressing  symptoms  of  vacuity  which  result  from 
living  on  seven  shillings  a  week.  It  may  be  warranted  to  supersede 
potatoes  and  bacon ;  containing  in  fact,  in  itself,  the  essence  of 
gammon ;  and  one  pinch  dissolved  in  a  tumbler  of  hot  water  is  equal 
to  a  pot  of  beer.  Landed  proprietors,  not  wishing  to  reduce  their 
rents,  will  find  this  preparation  admirably  calculated  to  reconcile 
labourers  with  their  present  rate  of  wages  by  enabling  them  almost 


1  For  the  actual  speech  of  the  Duke  see  the  Examiner  for  1845,  p.  786. 

c— 1  17 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


entirely  to  dispense  with  food.  Sold  in  pots,  at  from  one  shilling. 
Agricultural  societies  supplied. 

N.B. — A  liberal  allowance  on  taking  a  quantity. 

In  these  years  the  Dukes  were  constantly  in  Mr.  Punch’s 
pillory;  the  Duke  of  Marlborough  for  his  harsh  treatment 
of  his  tenantry  in  connection  with  the  Woodstock  Election  in 
1844;  the  Duke  of  Buckingham  for  prosecuting  a  rat-catcher, 
who  was  fined  18s.  or  fourteen  days  for  killing  a  leveret  as 
big  as  a  kitten,  and  about  the  same  time  for  prosecuting  a 
poacher  for  damaging  a  fence  to  the  amount  of  one  penny; 
the  Duke  of  Sutherland,  in  the  same  year  again,  for  the 
arbitrary  rules  enforced  on  his  estate,  the  whole  county  being 
parcelled  out  into  sheep-walks,  which  suggested  to  Punch 
that  he  should  be  dignified  with  the  Order  of  Mutton;  the 
Duke  of  Richmond  for  apparently  imagining  that  agricultural 
troubles  could  be  settled  by  the  simple  process  of  drinking 
the  health  of  the  British  labourer;  the  Duke  of  Atholl  for 
closing  Glen  Tilt.  Even  the  Great  Duke  himself  was  not 
immune  from  criticism  and  censure.  He  had  done  a  great 
work  in  the  past,  but  he  was  out  of  touch  with  the  times  and 
lacking  in  sympathy  with  the  people.  His  words  reflected  his 
iron  temperament :  they  were  like  tenpenny  nails.  In  1845 
Punch  made  bold  to  suggest  that  the  time  for  his  going  to 
grass  had  arrived:  — 

The  Times  says  “  he  is  the  leader  of  the  aristocracy.”  Let  him  go 
and  lead  the  Dukes.  He  is  fit  for  that,  but  not  any  longer  for 
governing  us.  .  .  .  The  old  Duke  should  no  longer  block  up  the 

great  thoroughfare  of  civilisation — he  should  be  quietly  and  respect¬ 
fully  eliminated.  For  the  future,  let  us  have  him  and  admire  him — 
in  history. 

Harsh  sentences  on  juvenile  delinquents  and  plebeian 
offenders  under  the  Game  Laws  and  Sunday  Trading  Act, 
the  harrying  of  vagrants,  the  treatment  of  destitution  as  a 
crime,  are  a  constant  spur  to  Punch’s  reforming  zeal.  The 
hard  cases  quoted  from  The  Times  and  many  provincial  papers 
include  the  flogging  of  a  boy  for  accidentally  killing  a  leveret; 

18 


Harsh  Sentences  on  Children 


the  trial  of  a  starving  woman  for  the  crime  of  stealing  a 
faggot  worth  a  penny;  the  prosecution  of  two  children,  aged 
six  and  twelve,  for  picking  two  handfuls  of  peas  while  walk¬ 
ing  in  a  field  through  which  there  was  a  path,  and  the  send¬ 
ing  of  the  elder  boy  to  gaol  for  fourteen  days  in  default  of  pay¬ 
ment  of  a  fine  of  6d.  and  13s.  costs;  a  sentence  of  six  months’ 
imprisonment  for  stealing  a  crab  worth  is.  6d. ;  the  fining  of 
a  man  5s.  by  his  vicar  because  his  child,  aged  nine,  had  sold 
a  halfpenny  worth  of  sweets  to  another  child  on  Sunday — which 
reminds  Punch  of  Herod  and  the  Innocents.  In  1841  Lord 
Brougham,  in  Parliament,  during  a  discussion  on  prison  dis¬ 
cipline,  stated  that  a  man  “had  been  confined  ten  weeks,  having 
been  fined  is.,  with  14s.  costs,  because  he  was  absent  one 
Sunday  from  church.”  Then  in  1846  we  have  the  case  of  a 
woman  charged  with  “exciting  charity,”  though  she  had  not 
solicited  alms.  As  late  as  1859  we  read  of  a  child  of  nine  in 
Essex,  sent  to  prison  for  fourteen  days  and  whipped  for  steal¬ 
ing  |  lb.  of  butter.  Small  wonder  is  it  that  Punch  was  a 
fervent  and  convinced  anti-Sabbatarian,  or  that  he  wrote  in 
1846:  “The  State  does  not  trouble  itself  much  with  education 
in  this  country,  but  the  most,  usual  schools  for  the  young  and 
destitute  are  the  prisons.”  The  alternatives  of  fine  or  imprison¬ 
ment  heightened  the  evil,  for  while  the  poor  delinquent  went 
to  gaol  the  well-to-do  offender  escaped.  Brutal  assaults  on 
women  were  punished  by  a  lenient  fine,  which  the  bully  could 
generally  pay;  fraudulent  tradesmen  were  not  deterred  from 
repeating  their  offences  by  a  money  penalty  which  they  could 
easily  afford;  it  was  only  the  penniless  pilferer  who  was  sure 
of  prison.  In  1844  we  find  Punch  tracing  incendiarism  in 
Suffolk  to  the  greed  of  the  farmers  in  keeping  wages  down, 
and  publishing  Leech’s  famous  cartoon  “The  Home  of  the 
Rick  Burner.”  Facit  indignatio  versum:  here  is  the  picture 
of  “The  Fine  Old  English  Gentleman  of  the  Present  Time  ” — 
in  the  middle  of  the  Hungry  ’Forties:  — 

I’ll  sing  you  a  fine  old  song,  improved  by  a  modern  pate, 

Of  a  fine  Old  English  Gentleman,  who  owns  a  large  estate, 

But  pays  the  labourers  on  it  a  very  shabby  rate. 

19 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


Some  seven  shillings  each  a  week  for  early  work  and  late, 

Gives  this  fine  Old  English  Gentleman,  one  of  the  present  time. 
*  *  *  * 

In  winter’s  cold,  when  poor  and  old  for  some  assistance  call, 

And  come  to  beg  a  trifle  at  the  portals  of  his  hall, 

He  refers  them  to  the  workhouse,  that  stands  open  wide  for  all; 
For  this  is  how  the  parish  great  relieve  the  parish  small, 

Like  this  fine  Old  English  Gentleman,  one  of  the  present  time. 

Here  is  the  portrait  of  the  pauper:  — 

Houseless,  famish’d,  desp’rate  man, 

A  ragged  wretch  am  I  ! 

And  how,  and  when,  and  where  I  can, 

I  feed,  and  lodge,  and  lie. 

And  I  must  to  the  workhouse  go, 

If  better  may  not  be; 

Ay,  if,  indeed  !  The  workhouse  !  No  ! 

The  gaol — the  gaol  for  me. 

*  *  * 

There  shall  I  get  the  larger  crust, 

The  warmer  house-room  there ; 

And  choose  a  prison  since  I  must, 

I’ll  choose  it  for  its  fare. 

The  dog  will  snatch  the  biggest  bone, 

So  much  the  wiser  he  : 

Call  me  a  dog — the  name  I’ll  own — 

The  gaol — the  gaol  for  me. 

The  horror  of  the  “Union”  inspired  some  of  the  most 
moving'  pages  in  Dickens’  “Our  Mutual  Friend  ”  some  twenty 
years  later.  How  deep  and  well  justified  it  was  in  the  ’forties 
may  be  gathered  from  the  scandal  of  the  Andover  Union 
workhouse  in  ’45,  the  habitual  underfeeding  of  paupers,  and 
the  frequent  inquests  at  which  verdicts  of  “natural  death  ” 
were  returned  on  victims  of  neglect  and  even  cruelty.  The 
opposition  to  the  humane  proposal  to  establish  a  lending  library 
at  the  Greenwich  workhouse,  following  the  example  of 
Wandsworth,  moved  Punch  to  indignant  irony:  “Food  for  a 
pauper’s  mind,  indeed  !  It  is  quite  enough  to  have  to  find 
food  for  his  body.”  In  1851  an  inquiry  into  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  a  workhouse  near  Leeds  revealed  that  the  inmates 


20 


Bigamy  or  Divorce  ? 


were  fed  at  a  trough,  six  at  a  time.  In  1857  the  workhouse 
children  at  Bath  were  not  allowed  to  see  the  pantomime  Jack 
and  the  Beanstalk.  Owing  to  the  intervention  of  the  Guardians, 
headed  by  a  clergyman,  the  children  were  actually  stopped  at 
the  door  of  the  theatre.  But  in  “  Dust  from  a  Bath-brick  ” 
Punch  dusted  the  jackets  of  the  Guardians  in  his  best  style. 
Again  and  again  we  find  him  protesting  against  the  regulation 
of  the  new  Poor  Law  which  separated  man  and  wife  directly 
they  entered  the  workhouse.  For  professional  mendicants  he 
had  no  sympathy.  Witness  the  ironical  lines  on  “The  Jolly 
London  Beggars  ”  :  — 

A  fig  for  honest  occupation, 

Beggary’s  an  easier  trade; 

Industry  is  mere  starvation, 

Mendicancy’s  better  paid. 

In  the  long  campaign  for  the  reform  of  the  Marriage  Laws 
Punch  never  ceased  to  reiterate  his  conviction  that  cheap 
divorce  was  a  better  remedy  than  the  punishment  of  the  brutal 
husband.  Yet  when  Mr.  Justice  Maule  delivered  his  historic 
judgment  in  1845,  Punch  hardly  rendered  justice  to  that  master¬ 
piece  of  fruitful  irony  :  — 

WAGGERY  OF  THE  BENCH 

One  Thomas  Rollins,  as  poor  as  beggary,  was  arraigned  as  a 
bigamist.  His  first  wife  had  left  him  and  become  no  better  than 
one  of  the  wicked.  Whereupon  Rollins  took  another  helpmate ;  and, 
for  such  violation  of  the  law,  found  himself  face  to  face  with  Justice 
Maule,  who,  as  it  will  appear,  happened  to  be  in  one  of  his 
pleasantest  humours.  He  told  the  culprit,  and  we  doubt  not  with  a 
gravity  of  face  worthy  of  the  original  Billy  Lackaday,  “that  the  law 
was  the  same  for  him  as  it  was  for  a  rich  man,  and  was  equally  open 
for  him,  through  its  aid,  to  afford  relief.”  In  the  like  way  that 
turbot  and  champagne  are  the  same  to  Lazarus  as  to  Dives;  if 
Lazarus  could  only  buy  the  taste  of  them.  Beggar  and  rich  man 
have  both  the  same  papillary  organs — a  dignifying  truth  for  the 
outcast  wanting  a  dinner  !  However,  the  droll  Judge  continued  his 
pleasantry  : 

“He  (Rollins)  should  have  brought  an  action  against  the  man 
who  was  living  in  the  way  stated  with  his  wife,  and  he  should 


21 


Mr.  PuncJis  History  of  Modern  England 


have  obtained  damages,  and  then  should  have  gone  to  the 
Ecclesiastical  Court  and  obtained  a  divorce,  which  would  have 
done  what  seemed  to  have  been  done  already,  and  then  he 
should  have  gone  to  the  House  of  Lords,  and,  proving  all  his 
case  and  the  preliminary  proceedings,  have  obtained  a  full  and 
complete  divorce;  after  which  he  might,  if  he  liked  it,  have 
married  again.” 

There  is  a  delicious  vein  of  humour  in  this.  It  smacks  of  the 
grave,  earnest  fun  of  Swift.  How  the  jest  increases  in  volume  as 
we  follow  the  pauper  from  court  to  court — tarry  with  him  awhile  in 
the  House  of  Lords — and  finally  see  him  ‘‘married  again.”  And 
then  the  Judge,  in  a  sustained  spirit  of  drollery,  observes: 

“The  prisoner  might  perhaps  object  to  this,  that  he  had  not 
the  money  to.  pay  the  expenses,  which  would  amount  to  about 
^500  or  £600 — perhaps  he  had  not  so  many  pence — but  this 
did  not  exempt  him  from  paying  the  penalty  for  committing  a 
felony,  of  which  he  had  been  convicted.” 

Of  course  not.  Therefore  Thomas  Rollins  is  in  effect  not 
punished  for  marrying  a  second  wife,  but  for  the  turpitude  of 
wanting  “about  yQ 500  or  g6oo,”  by  means  of  which  he  might  have 
rid  himself  of  his  first  spouse.  In  England  the  bonds  of  Hymen  are 
only  to  be  cut  with  a  golden  axe.  Assuredly  there  needs  a  slight 
alteration  in  the  marriage  service.  “Whom  God  hath  joined,  let 
no  man  put  asunder,”  should  be  followed  by  these  words,  “Unless 
paid  about  £s°°  or  £600  to  separate  them.” 

Punch,  we  are  afraid,  was  inclined,  in  those  days  at  any 
rate,  to  resent  any  attempt  to  usurp  his  functions  as  a  public 
ironist,  even  by  those  who  were  fighting  on  the  same  side 
as  himself.  Anyhow,  he  omitted  to  mention  that  the  judge 
sentenced  Rollins  to  one  day’s  imprisonment.  But  later  refer¬ 
ences  to  this  fatuous  judgment  made  it  clear  that  Punch 
recognized  that  the  judge’s  irony  was  deliberate  and  animated 
by  a  sincere  desire  for  reform,  not  by  mere  irresponsible 
“waggery.” 

Against  the  Game  Laws  and  their  administration  Punch 
waged  a  continuous  war.  Squires  were  condemned  for  the 
damage  done  to  land  by  game  kept  up  for  the  profit  of  the 
landlord,  hares  being  fed  at  the  expense  of  the  tenant  farmer. 
John  Bull  worshipped  rank  and  money,  and  amongst  his  idols 

22 


The  Model  Labourer 


were  hares,  pheasants  and  partridges,  with  his  “bold 
peasantry  ”  as  their  constant  victims. 

The  Hon.  Grantley  Fitzhardinge  Berkeley,  M.P.,  who 
published  a  pamphlet  in  1845  defending  the  drastic  treatment 
of  poachers,  was  very  roughly  handled  for  his  calm  assertion 
of  the  sacred  rights  of  game;  but  perhaps  the  most  effective 
comment  on  the  inequalities  of  life  on  the  land  is  to  be  found 
in  the  ironical  portrait  of  “The  Model  Labourer  ”  in  the  summer 
of  1848  :  — 

He  supports  a  large  family  upon  the  smallest  wages.  He  works 
from  twelve  to  fourteen  hours  a  day.  He  rises  early  to  dig  in  what 
he  calls  his  garden.  He  prefers  his  fireside  to  the  alehouse,  and 
has  only  one  pipe  when  he  gets  home,  and  then  to  bed.  He  attends 
church  regularly,  with  a  clean  smock  frock  and  face,  on  Sundays, 
and  waits  outside,  when  service  is  over,  to-  pull  his  hair  to  his 
landlord,  or,  in  his  absence,  pays  the  same  reverence  to  the  steward. 
Beer  and  he  are  perfect  strangers,  rarely  meeting,  except  at  Christ¬ 
mas  or  harvest  time;  and  as  for  spirits,  he  only  knows  them,  like 
meat,  by  name.  He  does  not  care  for  skittles.  He  never  loses  a 
day’s  work  by  attending  political  meetings.  Newspapers  do  not 
make  him  discontented,  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  cannot  read. 
He  believes  strongly  in  the  fact  of  his  belonging  to  the  “Finest 
Peasantry.”  He  sends  his  children  to  school  somehow,  and  gives 
them  the  best  boots  and  education  he  can.  He  attributes  all 
blights,  bad  seasons,  failures,  losses,  accidents  to  the  repeal  of  the 
Corn  Laws.  He  won’t  look  at  a  hare,  and  imagines,  in  his  respect 
for  rabbits,  that  Jack  Sheppard  was  a  poacher.  He  whitewashes  his 
cottage  once  a  year.  He  is  punctual  with  his  rent,  and  somehow, 
by  some  rare  secret  best  known  by  his  wages,  he  is  never  ill.  He 
knows  absolutely  nothing  beyond  the  affairs  of  his  parish,  and  does 
not  trouble  himself  greatly  about  them.  If  he  has  a  vote,  it  is  his 
landlord’s,  of  course.  He  joins  in  the  cry  of  “Protection,”  wonder¬ 
ing  what  it  means,  and  puts  his  X  most  innocently  to  any  farmer’s 
petition.  He  subscribes  a  penny  a  week  to  a  Burial  Society.  He 
erects  triumphal  arches,  fills  up  a  group  of  happy  tenants,  shouts, 
sings,  dances — any  mockery  or  absurdity,  to  please  his  master.  He 
has  an  incurable  horror  of  the  Union,  and  his  greatest  pride  is  to 
starve  sooner  than  to  solicit  parish  relief.  His  children  are  taught 
the  same  creed.  He  prefers  living  with  his  wife  to  being  separated 
from  her.  His  only  amusement  is  the  Annual  Agricultural  Fat-and- 
Tallow  Show;  his  greatest  happiness  if  his  master’s  pig,  which  he 
has  fattened,  gets  the  prize.  He  struggles  on,  existing  rather  than 

23 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


living,  infinitely  worse  fed  than  the  beasts  he  gets  up  for  the 
exhibitions — much  less  cared  about  than  the  soil  he  cultivates;  toil¬ 
ing  without  hope,  spring,  summer,  autumn  and  winter,  his  wages 
never  higher — frequently  less — and  perhaps  after  thirty  years’  un¬ 
ceasing  labour,  if  he  has  been  all  that  time  with  the  same  landlord, 
he  gets  the  munificent  reward  of  six-and-twopence,  accompanied,  it  is 
true,  with  a  warm  eulogium  on  his  virtues  by  the  President  (a  real 
Lord)  for  having  brought  up  ten  children  and  several  pigs  upon  five 
shillings  a  week.  This  is  the  MODEL  LABOURER,  whose  end  of 
life  is  honourably  fulfilled  if  he  is  able,  after  a  whole  life’s  sowing  for 
another,  to  reap  a  coffin  for  himself  to  be  buried  in  ! 

This  is  not  an  imaginary  portrait,  though  some  of  the 
touches  are  heightened  by  the  artist.  As  for  the  vote,  a  good 
illustration  is  to  be  found  in  the  advertisement  of  the  sale 
of  the  Earl  of  Ducie’s  domain  in  1843,  quoted  by  Punch  on 
page  14  of  Vol.  v.,  including  “the  entire  village  of  Nymph- 
field,  wherein  are  66  houses  and  the  Ducie  Arms,  with  political 
influence  extending  over  1,200  honest  yeomen.”  As  for  the 
exhibitions,  with  their  rewards  and  prizes  for  the  virtuous 
and  industrious  poor,  Punch  was  lavish  of  sarcasm  at  the 
expense  of  this  parsimonious  and  condescending  benevolence, 
when  the  prizes  represented  a  miserable  percentage  on  the 
profits  which  the  recipients  had  earned  for  their  masters  by 
special  zeal.  So  we  find  him  suggesting  a  prize  of  ^1  to  the 
labourer  who  had  lived  the  longest  number  of  years  on  the 
shortest  commons,  and  during  the  same  period  Leech’s  cartoon 
of  a  show  where  the  prize  pig  is  awarded  £3  3s.  and  the 
prize  peasant  £ 2  2s.  When  baby  shows  were  introduced  in  the 
next  decade,  Lord  Palmerston  was  drawn  with  his  prize  agricul¬ 
tural  baby,  holding  up  a  wizened  old  labourer  with  the  label 
“Prize,  30s.  Labourer  all  his  life  and  never  wanted  to  im¬ 
prove  his  condition.”  Punch’s  democratic  distrust  of  Lords 
and  Ladies  Bountiful  was  no  doubt  in  part  the  cause  of  his 
hostility  to  the  Young  England  movement.  Lroin  his  account 
of  the  matter  one  might  gather  that  Disraeli  identified  himself 
with,  if  he  did  not  actually  originate,  the  fashion  of  giving 
prizes  to  the  working  classes.  Lord  John  Manners  fell  an 
easy  prey  to  “the  Democritus  of  Lleet  Street”  (as  the  Daily 
Telegraph  called  Punch  in  later  years),  when  in  “England’s 

24 


Lord  Shaftesbury 


Trust  and  other  Poems  ”  was  penned  the  memorable  cri 
de  cceur:— 

Though  I  could  bear  to  view  our  crowded  towns 
Sink  into  hamlets  or  unpeopled  downs ; 

Let  wealth  and  commerce,  laws  and  learning  die, 

But  leave  us  still  our  old  nobility. 

But  “Young  England  ”  practised  better  than  its  poet 
preached.  For  proof  one  need  only  turn  to  the  history  of  the 
reform  of  the  Factory  Acts  which  Punch  unflinchingly  sup¬ 
ported,  while  rendering  scant  justice  to  the  man  who  started 
this  “great  campaign  against  the  oppression  of  the  industrial 
poor  ”  and  carried  it  to  a  successful  conclusion,  or  to  some 
of  those  who  lent  him  most  valuable  assistance.  Of  Lord 
Ashley,  afterwards  the  seventh  Earl  of  Shaftesbury,  it  has 
been  said  that  if  there  is  a  Seventh  Heaven  he  is  there.  But 
he  was  a  Tory,  who  had  opposed  the  Reform  Bill  of  1832, 
though  he  supported  Catholic  Emancipation  and  resigned  his 
seat  for  Dorset  in  1846  in  the  belief  that  the  continuance  of 
the  Corn  Laws  was  impracticable;  he  was  an  aristocrat;  he 
held  pronounced  Evangelical  views  and  was  a  convinced 
Sabbatarian.  On  all  these  grounds  he  was  held  suspect  by 
Punch.  Yet  as  early  as  1833  Lord  Ashley  was  mainly  in¬ 
strumental  in  securing  the  passage  of  a  Factory  Act,  the  scope 
of  which  was  narrowed  by  the  hostility  of  Whigs,  manufac¬ 
turing  capitalists  and  doctrinaire  Radicals.  In  1840  he  got  a 
Commission  appointed,  whose  report,  published  in  1842, 
shocked  the  conscience  of  the  nation  and  led  to  the  introduc¬ 
tion  of  a  Bill  excluding  women  and  children  from  mines.  In 
the  next  phase  of  this  humane  campaign,  when  Sir  James 
Graham  introduced  a  Government  Bill  to  regulate  labour  in 
factories,  Disraeli  and  the  “Young  England  ”  group  supported 
Ashley  throughout  against  the  refusal  of  the  Government  to 
concede  the  ten-hour  limit.  But  the  Government,  supported 
by  Bright  and  most  of  the  Radical  Free  Traders,  threw  all  its 
weight  into  the  scale  of  the  millowners,  carried  the  day  against 
Ashley,  “Young  England  ”  and  most  of  the  official  Whigs, 
and  until  1847  the  labour  of  boys  from  13  to  18  years  of  age, 

25 


Mr.  P line /is  History  of  Modern  England 


and  of  girls  and  women  to  21,  stood  at  twelve  hours  a  day. 
The  Act  of  1847,  which  limited  the  hours  of  work  for  women 
and  children  to  ten  hours,  was  imperfectly  drafted,  and 
the  interpretation  placed  upon  it  by  the  Courts  enabled  manu¬ 
facturers  to  evade  its  provisions.  In  1850  the  Government 
offered  a  compromise  implying  a  ioj-hour  day,  which  was 
reluctantly  accepted  by  Lord  Ashley.  But  Disraeli  supported 
Lord  John  Manners  in  protesting  against  this  compromise. 
As  his  biographers  do  well  to  remind  us,  he  condemned  it 
as  a  breach  of  faith  with  the  overworked  population  :  the  honour 
of  Parliament  was  concerned  in  not  taking  advantage  of  a 
legal  flaw.  The  Government  again  carried  the  day,  but  only 
for  the  moment;  the  objects  of  its  critics  have  long  since  been 
more  than  obtained.  Disraeli’s  speech  on  this  occasion  was 
“  instinct  with  the  spirit  of  Sybil  ” — his  finest  and  best 
constructed  novel.  Sybil  was  published  in  1845,  and 
though  in  its  essentials  exhibiting  a  remarkable  convergence 
with  the  aims  of  Punch,  was  never  mentioned  by  him  at  the 
time.  Disraeli  was  a  Jew.  Now  Punch  consistently  supported 
the  removal  of  Jewish  disabilities  as  an  act  of  justice,  and 
when  rebuking  the  Exeter  Hall  philanthropists  for  thinking 
that  charity  must  begin  abroad,  and  for  neglecting  the  starving 
sempstress  for  the  apostate  Jew,  Chinese,  Hottentots,  etc., 
gave  them  this  excellent  advice:  “Ye  who  would  convert  the 
Jews,  first  copy  the  Jews’  great  virtue;  first  take  care  of  your 
own  poor;  feed  and  clothe  them,  and  then,  if  you  will,  with 
the  superfluity  make  converts  of  the  Hebrews.”  But  Punch 
was  no  lover  of  Jews,  and  least  of  all  of  Disraeli.  He  soon 
recognized  his  abilities  as  a  great  Parliamentary  gladiator;  he 
admitted  his  courage  and  tenacity.  In  the  main,  however, 
Punch  regarded  him  at  this  stage  of  his  career  as  a  brilliant  but 
undesirable  alien,  a  flamboyant  charlatan,  an  untrustworthy  and 
insincere  patron  of  the  agricultural  interest.  Yet  Sybil  in  its 
pictures  of  the  inequalities  and  miseries  of  the  social  and  in¬ 
dustrial  system  then  prevailing,  was  conceived  and  executed 
largely  in  the  spirit  of  Hood’s  deathbed  letter  to  Peel.  Dis¬ 
raeli  was  never  more  “on  the  side  of  the  angels”  than  when  he 
wrote  the  dialogue  between  Egremont  and  the  stranger.  The 

26 


The  Two  Nations 


stranger,  after  observing  that  while  Christianity  teaches  us  to 
love  our  neighbours  as  ourselves,  modern  society  acknowledges 
no  neighbour,  adds  that  society,  still  in  its  infancy,  is  beginning 
to  feel  its  way.  Egremont  replies  :  — 

“Well,  Society  may  be  in  its  infancy;  but,  say  what  you  like, 
our  Queen  reigns  over  the  greatest  nation  that  ever  existed.” 
“Which  nation?”  asked  the  younger  stranger;  “for  she  reigns  over 
two.”  The  stranger  paused.  Egremont  was  silent,  but  looked  in¬ 
quiringly.  “Yes,”  resumed  the  younger  stranger  after  a  moment’s 
interval,  “two  nations;  between  whom  there  is  no  intercourse  and  no 
sympathy ;  who  are  as  ignorant  of  each  other’s  habits,  thoughts  and 
feelings  as  if  they  were  dwellers  in  different  zones,  or  inhabitants  of 
different  planets ;  who  are  formed  by  a  different  breeding,  and  fed  by 
a  different  food,  are  ordered  by  different  manners,  and  are  not 
governed  by  the  same  laws.”  “You  speak  of,”  said  Egremont 
hesitatingly, — “ THE  RICH  AND  THE  POOR.” 

Disraeli’s  sumptuous  upholstery,  which  Thackeray  was  so 
fond  of  burlesquing,  is  occasionally  apparent  in  Sybil, 
though  one  must  not  forget  his  own  explanation  :  “  I  write 
in  irony,  and  they  call  it  bombast.”  For  the  rest  the  pictures 
of  life  in  the  agricultural  and  industrial  districts,  the  squalid 
wretchedness  of  cellar  and  hovel,  the  evils  of  the  truck  system 
and  the  “tommy-shop  ”  were  never  more  luridly  painted  by 
any  Chartist  writer  than  by  Disraeli  in  Sybil.  The  details 
are  not  exaggerated;  they  are  borne  out  by  sober  historians 
such  as  S.  R.  Gardiner  in  describing  the  conditions  in  Man¬ 
chester,  Bethnal  Green  and  Dorsetshire.  Disraeli’s  inability 
to  reproduce  the  speech  of  artisans  or  peasants  correctly  is  a 
negligible  matter.  He  never  made  a  systematic  tour  in  the 
slums  as  Lord  Ashley  did  in  preparation  for  his  campaign 
on  behalf  of  Ragged  Schools;  he  was  not  a  literary  realist; 
but  here  he  was  in  touch  with  realities,  and  we  have  his  own 
word  for  it  that  he  wrote  from  personal  observation.  The 
heroes  of  the  book  are  all  on  the  side  of  reform ;  Gerard,  the 
people’s  leader;  St.  Lys,  the  humanitarian  parson;  Egremont, 
an  aristocrat  converted  from  indifference  by  contact  with  the 
poor;  and  the  martyrs  are  the  victims  of  the  existing  system, 
agricultural  labourers  on  8s.  a  week  and  starving  hand-loom 

27 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


weavers.  Disraeli  has  no  use  for  the  Lord  Marneys  and  de 
Mowbrays  who  complacently  acquiesced  in  the  serfdom  of  the 
slaves  in  smock-frocks  or  even  denied  that  they  were  badly  off. 
They  were  not  a  real  aristocracy,  a  “corporation  of  the  best  and 
bravest,”  in  Carlyle’s  phrase.  But  for  reasons  already  given 
Punch  was  not  prepared  to  accept  Disraeli  as  an  ally.  He 
was  too  useful  as  a  butt  for  satire  and  ridicule,  and  his  oriental 
personality  was  antipathetic  to  Punch’s  eminently  British  mind. 
Moreover,  in  justice  to  Punch  it  must  be  admitted  that  there 
were  real  divergences.  Disraeli  opposed  the  repeal  of  the 
Corn  Laws,  though  he  lived  to  describe  Protection  as  dead 
and  damned.  The  readjustment  of  the  “Two  Nations  ”  which, 
as  a  leader  of  the  “Young  England  ”  movement,  he  proposed 
for  the  remedy  and  removal  of  the  distress  and  tumult  and 
anger  of  the  Hungry  ’Forties,  involved  in  his  view  the 
strengthening  of  the  Sovereign  and  the  maintenance  of  the 
leadership  of  the  aristocracy.  They  were  to  be  awakened  to 
their  responsibilities  and  duties,  but  not  shorn  of  their  rights 
and  privileges.  Punch  was  a  thoroughgoing  Free  Trader  and 
Corn  Law  Repealer,  a  believer  in  measures  rather  than  men, 
an  unsparing  critic  of  Kings  and  Courts,  and  whenever  he 
saw  an  aristocratic  head,  inclined  to  hit  it.  “Young  England  ” 
only  served  as  a  target  for  satire;  Punch  refused  to  recognize 
the  genuine  idealism  by  which  the  best  of  the  group  were 
animated.  But,  as  one  of  their  defenders  has  admitted,  they 
were  not  a  real  Party,  and  were  concerned  with  principles 
rather  than  specific  measures  of  reform.  Idealism  which 
stopped  short  of  immediate  action  did  not  appeal  to  Punch. 
Though  often  a  petulant  and  intolerant  critic,  he  was  always 
on  the  look  out  for  practical  evidences  of  reform,  legislative, 
administrative  or  philanthropic.  In  1842  he  hailed  the  de¬ 
cision  to  close  the  Fleet  Prison,  and  when  it  was  about  to  be 
demolished,  wrote  in  1845  :  “Truly  there  are  sermons  in  stones, 
and  if  Beelzebub  wanted  to  preach  on  the  folly,  cruelty,  ignor¬ 
ance  and  wickedness  of  men  towards  men,  even  he  could  not 
hit  upon  a  more  suggestive  text  than  is  written — written  in 
tears — on  every  stone  of  the  Fleet  Prison.”  Of  the  efforts  to 
bring  justice  within  the  reach  of  the  poor  he  was  an  impassioned 

28 


A  Plot  Against  Prisons 


advocate  from  the  very  first.  When  a  police  magistrate  ex¬ 
pressed  views  of  which  he  disapproved  he  did  not  hesitate  to 
describe  him  as  “an  insufferably  ignorant,  and  therefore  in¬ 
solent,  magisterial  cur”!  That  was  in  1841.  Four  years 
later  Punch  vociferously  applauds  a  courageous  magistrate 
who  committed  a  “gentleman  ”  to  the  House  of  Correction 
for  a  brutal  assault,  and  welcomes  a  revolt  against  harsh  sen¬ 
tences  in  the  action  of  the  Recorder  at  the  Central  Criminal 
Court,  who  in  1847  refused  to  send  a  boy  of  twelve  to  prison 
for  stealing  12s.  from  his  inaster  “because  if  he  went  to 
prison  he  might  become  an  expert  thief.” 

In  the  year  1853  Punch  discussed  at  length,  under  the  title 
of  “A  Plot  against  Prisons,”  and  in  the  ironical  vein  which 
frequently  exposed  him  to  misconception  by  his  prosaic  readers, 
“a  dangerous  conspiracy  organized  for  the  purpose  of  defraud¬ 
ing  the  gallows  and  the  hulks,”  and  initiated  by  one  of  the 
noblest  of  many  noble  Quaker  philanthropists:  — 

The  originator  of  the  plot  is  one  Joseph  Sturge,  who  has  founded 
an  establishment,  called  the  Reformatory  Institution,  in  Birmingham, 
and  placed  it  under  the  superintendence  of  another  man  named  Ellis, 
who  formerly  presided  over  a  similar  concern  in  London,  being  a 
place  of  resort  for  young  thieves,  where  they  were  inveigled,  and 
seduced  into  the  abandonment  of  their  dishonest  calling.  To  this 
end  no  pains  were  spared  to  render  the  paths  of  virtue  seductive,  by 
blending  as  much  amusement  as  possible  with  the  particular  branch 
of  industry  the  lads  were  instructed  in.  The  man  Ellis,  their  enticer 
from  the  line  of  turpitude,  is  a  shoemaker.  He  says  in  his  evidence, 
reported  by  the  House  of  Commons  : 

“  I  used  to  go  and  sit  with  them  for  two  or  three  hours  a 
day,  and  I  used  to  tell  them  that  they  might,  by  governing  their 
tongues,  their  tempers  and  their  appetites,  and  governing  them¬ 
selves  generally,  be  much  more  happy  if  they  would  put  them¬ 
selves  in  harmony  with  the  laws  of  their  own  physical  nature ; 
and  I  showed  them  how  wrong  it  was  to  break  the  social  laws 
that  bind  society  together,  and  also  the  laws  of  God,  and  so 
forth.  I  considered  that  my  conversation  with  them  for  two 
or  three  hours  had  had  a  great  effect;  and  I  provided  them  with 
wholesome  food,  and  I  gave  them  clothes  to  wear,  and  I  sur 
rounded  them  with  as  many  comforts  as  I  possibly  could.” 

29 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


The  Birmingham  Institution,  under  the  same  management,  has 
also  succeeded  to  such  an  extent  that  it  is  in  contemplation  to 
establish  another  there  on  a  larger  scale;  which,  no  doubt,  will  most 
seriously  tend  to  impair  the  utility  of  those  magnificent  edifices,  our 
gaols  and  bridewells,  which  everywhere  afford  such  vast  but  by  no 
means  empty  accommodation.  A  meeting  has  been  held,  Lord 
Calthorpe  in  the  chair,  to  carry  out  the  desired  object,  which  will 
tend  to  throw  so  many  turnkeys  out  of  employment,  and  to  which 
all  persons  are  asked  to  subscribe  who  desire  to  rob  Jack  Ketch  of 


SERVANTGALISM 


COOK:  “  Well,  to  be  sure,  Mum!  Last  place  1  were  in  Missis  always  knocked 
at  the  door  afore  she  come  into  the  kitchen ! !  ” 


his  livelihood,  and  the  Government  of  convict  labour,  by  substituting 
prevention  for  cure — superseding  prison  discipline  by  reformation. 

The  relations  of  masters,  mistresses  and  servants  is  a  never 
ending  theme  in  the  pages  of  Punch.  His  attitude  was 
governed  by  the  broad  principles  that  the  labourer  was  worthy 
of  his  hire,  and  that  those  who  offered  inadequate  wages  must 
expect  neither  character  nor  efficiency.  But  he  draws  a  clear 
distinction  between  the  domestic  slave  and  the  flunkey,  hold- 

30 


High  Life  Below  Sloth's 


ing  that  snobbery  in  employers  was  the  chief  cause  of  its 
prevalence  amongst  highly  paid  servants.  Punch  was  the 
champion  of  the 


“  slavey  ”  —  immor¬ 
talized  in  Dickens’s 
“  Marchioness  ”  — 
even  of  the  much- 
maligned  char¬ 
woman  ;  the  relent- 
less  critic  of 
Jeames,  his  plush 
and  powder  and 
calves.  As  early 
as  1847  we 
him  supporting  a 
reversal  of  the  old 
regime  :  the  mis¬ 
tress  must  be  ap¬ 
proved  by  the  ser¬ 
vant,  and  furnish  a 
satisfactory  charac¬ 
ter.  The  plea  is 
not  surprising, 
when  advertise¬ 
ments  (or  a  kitchen- 
maid,  “wages  £3 
a  year,”  appeared 
in  a  fashionable 
paper  and  earned 
Punch’s  satire. 

Contrariwise,  he 
never  spares  the 
arrogance  of  “ser- 
vantgalism,”  the 
assumption  of  “  my 

lady  the  housemaid.”  In  this  spirit  Punch  makes  game  of 
a  school  for  servants  at  Bristol,  where  lessons  on  the 
pianoforte  were  given,  but  if  servant  girls  and  nurses 


COACHMAN:  "Why — what’s  the  matter,  John 
Thomas  ?  ” 

FOOTMAN  :  “  Matter  enuff !  Here’s  the  mar¬ 
chioness  bin  and  giv  me  notice  because  I  don’t 
match  Joseph,  an'  I  must  go,  unless  I  can  get  my  fat 
down  in  a  week  !  ’’ 


31 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


were  neglectful  of  their  duties  and  their  infant  charges, 
mistresses  were  equally  to  blame  for  their  indolence  and 
disregard  of  parental  responsibilities.  But  the  keenest  arrows 
in  Punch’s  quiver  were  reserved  for  “Jeames.”  He  quotes 
from  the  columns  of  The  Times  the  advertisements  of  a  foot¬ 
man,  “tall,  handsome,  with  broad  shoulders  and  extensive 
calves,”  who  “prefers  Belgravia  or  the  North  Side  of  the 
Park,”  while  a  little  later  on  another  of  this  type  insists  on 
“six  months  a  year  in  town,  and  if  in  an  unfashionable  neigh¬ 
bourhood,  five  guineas  extra  salary.”  If  I  refrain  from  quoting 
from  Thackeray’s  constant  variations  on  this  theme  in  the  pages 
of  Punch,  it  is  only  because  they  are  so  familiar  to  readers  of 
his  collected  works.  The  etiquette  of  fiunkeydom  was  peculiar. 
These  gorgeous  and  pampered  menials  had  their  grievances; 
they  were  “expected  to  sit  in  church  in  a  position  from  which 
the  clergyman  could  neither  be  seen  nor  heard,”  as  Punch 
put  it  in  1851.  Liveried  servants  were  not  allowed  in  Raw- 
storne  Street  Chapel,  Brompton,  in  1846,  and  a  protest  was 
made  in  the  Press  that  at  St.  George’s,  Hanover  Square,  “the 
real  aristocracy  of  the  land  are  separated  from  their  liveried 
domestics  by  a  mere  oak  panelling.”  But  in  this  war  on 
fiunkeyisin  “Jeames”  was  not  the  real  enemy;  it  was  rather 
the  genius  of  snobbery  which  Punch  impersonated  in 
“Jenkins  ”  of  the  Morning  Post  (or  Morning  Plush,  as  he  called 
it),  whose  fulsome  and  lyrical  rhapsodies  are  held  up  to  ridicule 
in  number  after  number.  In  this  context  two  extracts  may 
suffice,  from  an  account  of  the  galaxy  of  rank  and  fashion  at 
the  Opera  which  appeared  in  the  Morning  Post: 

It  is,  above  all,  necessary  that  the  middle  classes  and  the  poor 
should  see  and  feel  that  if  the  aristocracy  has  the  monopoly  of  titles 
and  the  lion’s  share  of  the  dignities  and  offices  of  the  State,  instead 
of  hoarding,  it  nobly  expends  its  revenues  in  those  luxuries  which 
emanate  from  the  ingenuity  and  labour  of  the  industrious. 

And  again — the  italics  and  capitals  are  Punch’s: — 

Ever  since  the  Italian  lyrical  drama  crossed  the  Alps  in  the  suites 
of  the  tasteful  Medicis,  its  vogue  has  daily  increased,  it  has  become 

32 


The  Underpaid  Governess 


a  ruling  passion — it  is  the  quintessence  of  all  civilized  pleasures ; 
and  wherever  its  principal  virtuosi  hoist  their  standard,  there  for  the 
time  is  the  CAPITAL  OF  EUROPE,  wfaei  e  the  most  illustrious, 
noble,  elegant  and  tasteful  members  of  society  assemble. 

These  ornaments  of  society  are  in  general  absent  at  the  too  early 
opening  of  Her  Majesty’s  Theatre;  but  on  Saturday,  as  we  surveyed 
the  house  previous  to  the  overture,  most  of  those  who  constitute 
society  in  England — those  whom  we  respect ,  esteem  or  love — rapidly 
filled  the  house. 

Every  seat  in  every  part  of  it  was  occupied,  and  if  those  objection¬ 
able  spectators  were  there — those  gentlemen  of  ambiguous  gentility, 
the  fashionable  couriers,  valets,  tailors  and  shoemakers ,  who  obtain 
admission  to  the  pit  on  the  strength  of  knowing  the  measure  of  some 
actor  or  actress’s  foot — they  and  their  frowsy  dames  were  so  nailed 
to  their  benches  as  not  to  offend  the  eye. 

These  effusions,  and  others  equally  unbridled  in  their 
assertion  of  the  divinity  of  kings  and  coronets,  prompted 
Punch  to  adorn  “Jenkins  ”  with  the  alias  of  Lickspittleoff.  It 
was  not  a  nice  name,  but  Punch  might  have  retorted  tdchez 
de  ne  pas  le  m  (inter. 

From  servants  to  governesses  the  transition  in  those  days 
was  only  too  easy.  Punch’s  study  of  the  advertisements  in 
this  branch  of  the  “slave  market  ”  began  early,  and  let  us 
hope  to  good  purpose,  though  as  I  write  the  comparative  rates 
of  remuneration  for  cooks  and  teachers  are  still  open  to  criticism. 
In  the  autumn  of  1843,  commenting  on  an  advertisement  in 
The  Times,  in  which  “  S.  S.”  offered  a  salary  of  £2  a  month 
to  “a  morning  daily  governess  of  ladylike  manners  for  three 
or  four  young  female  pupils,  capable  of  imparting  a  sound 
English  education,  with  French,  music  and  singing,  dancing 
and  drawing,  unassisted  by  masters,”  Punch  observes  :  — 

How  very  much  would  it  surprise  the  race  of  S.S.’s;  what  a  look 
of  offended  virtue  would  they  put  on  were  somebody  to  exclaim  to 
them,  “  It  is  such  as  you  who  help  to  fill  our  streets,  and  throng  the 
saloons  of  our  theatres ;  it  is  such  as  you  who  make  the  Magdalen 
indispensable.”  We  have  recently  read  the  statistics  of  insanity, 
and  have  found  governesses  to  be  in  a  frightful  disproportion  to  other 
educated  classes.  Can  this  be  wondered  at  when  we  read  such  offers 
as  those  of  S.S.  ? 


D — I 


33 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


The  terms  of  £2  a  month  were,  however,  liberal  compared 
with  those  offered  by  other  employers.  An  assistant  in  a  ladies’ 
school  was  expected  to  teach  English,  French  and  music  for 
£1  a  quarter,  while  not  at  all  infrequently  the  offer  of  board 
and  lodging  was  regarded  as  an  excuse  for  dispensing  with 
a  salary  altogether.  In  dealing  with  the  problem  of  these 


Thomas  gives  warning  because  his  master  has  given  up  reading  prayers,  and 
he  can’t  bemean  himself  by  “  sayin’  ‘Amen’  to  a  governess.” 


“Sisters  of  Misery,”  Punch  waxes  ironical  on  the  results  of 
their  improvidence  :  — 

If  in  the  course  of  ten  years,  with  a  salary  of,  let  us  say,  twenty- 
pounds  a  year,  out  of  which  she  has  only  to  buy  clothes  fit  to  keep 
company  with  the  children,  the  governess  has  not  saved  a  sufficiency 
for  her  declining  age.  it  is  but  too  painful  to  know  that  she  must 
have  been  a  very  profuse,  improvident  person.  And  yet,  I  fear  me, 
there  are  lamentable  instances  of  such  indiscretion.  I  myself,  at  this 
moment,  know  a  spendthrift  creature  who,  as  I  have  heard,  in  her 
prime — that  is,  for  the  ten  years — lived  in  one  family.  Two  of  her 
pupils  are  now  countesses.  Well,  she  had  saved  next  to  nothing, 
and  when  discharged  she  sank  lower  and  lower  as  a  daily  governess, 
and  at  length  absolutely  taught  French,  Italian,  and  the  harp  to  the 

34 


A  Real  Dotheboys  Hall 


daughters  of  small  tradesmen  at  eighteenpence  a  lesson.  In  time 
she,  of  course,  got  too  old  for  this.  She  now  lives  somewhere  at 
Camberwell,  and  though  sand-blind,  keeps  a  sixpenny  school  for 
little  boys  and  girls  of  the  lower  orders.  With  this,  and  the  profits 
on  her  cakes,  she  continues  to  eke  out  a  miserable  existence — a  sad 
example,  if  they  would  only  be  warned,  to  improvident  governesses. 

Punch’s  attentive  study  of  the  curiosities  of  literature  in 
advertisements  relating  to  education  continued  for  many  years. 
A  batch  of  them  extracted  from  The  Times  appears  in  the 
issue  of  August  14,  1853,  and  pillories  the  meanness  of  ladies 
who  wished  to  secure  governesses  without  saiaries,  or,  as  an 
alternative,  to  turn  their  houses  into  boarding  schools  and  get 
assistants  without  paying  for  them.  Already,  some  three  weeks 
earlier,  Punch  had  quoted  from  The  Times  the  advertise¬ 
ment  of  an  academy  for  young  gentlemen  near  Richmond,  in 
Yorkshire,  where  youths  were  “boarded,  furnished  with  books, 
and  instructed  in  whatever  their  future  prospects  might  require 
for  twenty  and  twenty-two  guineas  a  year.  No  vacations  unless 
desired.”  On  this  “Dotheboys  Hall  ”  in  real  life  Punch 
observes  that  while  such  a  price  for  a  year’s  food  for  mind 
and  body  is  a  miracle  of  cheapness,  “the  age  of  miracles  has 
passed,  and  especially — after  the  publication  of  Nicholas 
Nickleby — of  such  miracles  as  this.”  Yet  an  advertisement 
of  a  school  in  Essex  on  almost  precisely  similar  lines  survived 
for  at  least  forty  years  after  Punch’s  protest,  as  the  present 
writer  can  testify.  Nor  were  the  claims  of  the  underpaid 
official  forgotten.  In  his  “Penny  Post  Medal  ”  Punch 
endeavoured  to  illustrate  the  triumph  of  Rowland  Hill,  and 
waxed  lyrical  over  his  achievement,  indignant  over  his 
treatment  :  — 

Beautiful,  much  more  beautiful,  to  the  eye  of  the  philosopher 
Punch,  is  the  red  coat  of  the  Postman  with  his  bundle  of  penny 
missives  than  the  scarlet  coat  of  the  Life  Guardsman !  For  the 
Postman  is  the  soldier  of  peace — the  humanizing,  benevolent  dis¬ 
tributor  of  records  of  hopes,  affections,  tenderest  associations.  He  is 
the  philanthropic  go-between — the  cheap  and  constant  communicant 
betwixt  man  and  man. 


35 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


In  the  Penny  Post  Medal  Punch  has  endeavoured  to  show  the 
triumph  of  Rowland  Hill — no  Greek  or  Roman  triumph  e’er  so  great 
— carried  in  well-earned  glory  into  the  Post-office,  Saint  Martin ’s-le- 
Grand.  If  the  beholder  have  any  imagination,  he  will  hear  huzzaing 
shouts — he  will  hear  all  the  street-door  knockers  of  the  kingdom  for 


ROWLAND  HILL’S  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  INTO  ST.  MARTIN’S-LE- 

GRAND 

that  moment  instinct  with  joyous  life,  loudly  knock,  knock,  knocking 
in  thundering  accord.  Such  is  the  triumph  of  Rowland  Hill. 

Turn  we  to  the  Obverse.  It  shows  an  old  story ;  old  as  the 
ingratitude  of  man — old  as  the  Old  Serpent.  Sir  Robert  Peel,  the 
Tory  Minister,  no  sooner  gets  into  place  than,  in  reward  for  the 
services  of  Mr.  Rowland  Hill,  he  turns  him  from  the  Post  Office  !  or 

06 


Rowland  Hill's  Reward 


as  it  is  allegorically  shown,  he,  as  Britannia,  presents  him  with — 
the  sack. 

After  this,  a  subscription  is  set  afoot  to  which  Sir  Robert,  with 
Magdalen  penitence,  subscribes  ten  pounds  !  Ten  Pounds  !  It  must 
be  owned  a  very  small  plaister  to  heal  so  cruel  a  cut ! 


BRITANNIA  PRESENTING  ROWLAND  HILL  WITH  THE  SACK 


But  these  beneficent  “red-coated  genii  ”  were  “cruelly  ill- 
paid  ”  for  long  and  arduous  labour.  “His  walk  in  life  is 
frequently  such  a  walk  that  it  is  a  wonder  he  has  a  leg  to  stand 
upon;  for  he  travels  some  twenty  or  thirty  miles  a  day,  to 
the  equal  wear  and  tear  of  body  and  sole.  For  this  his  salary 

37 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


is  a  guinea  a  week.”  Accordingly,  when  in  1848  Post  Office 
robberies  were  frequent,  Punch,  without  excusing  theft,  re¬ 
garded  it  as  the  natural  result  of  this  miserable  pittance.  Under¬ 
payment  has  always  been  a  great  incentive  to  dishonesty,  and 
in  1848  we  have  Punch’s  assurance  that  the  postmen  were  the 
worst  paid  of  all  Government  employees. 

The  long  fight  for  early  closing,  for  the  Saturday  half¬ 
holiday,  and  for  reasonable  Sunday  recreation,  found  un¬ 
flinching  support  in  Punch  from  his  earliest  years.  He  did 
not,  it  is  true,  profess  a  burning  sympathy  with  the  bank 
clerks  in  1842  when  they  were  agitating  for  a  closure  at  4 
instead  of  5  p.m.,  but  he  was  wholeheartedly  on  the  side  of 
the  shop  assistants,  especially  in  the  linendrapers’  and 
milliners’  establishments.  One  of  his  earliest  incursions  into 
this  controversy  took  the  form  of  a  report  of  an  imaginary 
meeting  of  duchesses  at  Almack’s,  at  which  resolutions  were 
passed  deprecating,  in  a  contrite  spirit,  the  overworking  of 
milliners’  assistants,  and  establishing  an  association  to  persuade 
dressmakers  to  reduce  the  hours  of  work  to  eight  a  day,  abolish 
Sunday  work,  afford  reasonable  time  to  execute  orders,  provide 
medical  advice  and  change  of  air  for  the  sick,  and  start  a  fund 
to  carry  out  these  aims  (May  27,  1843).  These  aims  have  long 
been  realized  in  all  well-conducted  shops,  but  they  were  some¬ 
thing  like  counsels  of  perfection  in  the  year  of  “The  Song 
of  the  Shirt.”  But  Punch’s  irony  at  the  expense  of  incon¬ 
siderate  shoppers  in  “Beauty  and  Business  versus  Early 
Shops,”  and  “Directions  to  Ladies  for  Shopping,”  not  only 
tilts  at  femininity’s  little  ways,  but  shows  that  human  nature 
has  not  materially  changed  in  the  last  seventy-five  years. 
Punch  was  moved  by  the  hardships  of  dressmakers  and  shop¬ 
girls,  whom  he  compared  to  convicts  :  “  hard  labour  ”  was 
no  worse  than  theirs.  He  frankly  advocated  the  boycotting 
of  a  money-grubbing  hosier  in  Cheapside,  who  kept  his  shop 
open  until  nine  or  ten  o’clock,  though  all  the  other  hosiers 
in  that  thoroughfare  had  for  two  years  closed  theirs  at  eight 
— for  that  was  as  far  as  early  closing  had  reached  in  the  ’fifties. 
But  Punch  was  always  a  moderate  reformer,  very  far  from 
being  a  revolutionary,  and  he  condemned  with  great  asperity 

38 


Syndicalism  in  the  ’ Forties 


an  attempt  to  launch  an  experiment  mildly  foreshadowing 
modern  syndicalism  :  — 

Notwithstanding  our  desire  to  aid  the  assistant  drapers  in  any 
reasonable  movement,  we  cannot  encourage  them  in  the  foolery 
which,  according  to  a  prospectus  of  the  Metropolitan  Assistant 
Drapers’  Company,  they  seem  to  contemplate.  They  are  coolly 
asking  the  public  for  ^"150,000  in  15,000  shares  of  ten  pounds  each, 
to  start  a  model  establishment,  in  which  the  assistants  shall  be  their 
own  masters,  choose  their  own  work,  take  their  own  time,  and  seize 
“every  opportunity  for  indulging  in  all  healthy  pursuits  and  reason¬ 
able  enjoyments.”  The  prospectus  then  goes  on  to  state,  that  the 
assistants  will  become  “free  and  happy,  as  they  should  be.”  If  a 
linendraper’s  shop  is  to  be  turned  into  a  state  of  “freedom  and 
happiness  ”  all  day  long,  it  may  suit  the  shop-boys  well  enough,  but 
it  will  not  be  quite  so  agreeable  to  the  customers. 

Holding  it  to  be  his  duty  “to  smash  humbug  of  every 
description,”  Punch,  after  an  examination  of  the  financial  pro¬ 
posals  of  the  “free  and  happy  ”  linendrapers,  pronounces 
them  guilty  of  very  gross  humbug  in  putting  forward  their 
prospectus.  The  control  of  industry  by  the  workers  formed 
no  part  of  his  schemes  for  bettering  their  condition. 

In  the  period  under  review  Sunday  was,  speaking  broadly, 
the  only  holiday  of  the  working  classes.  Punch’s  views  on 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


their  recreations,  therefore,  were  necessarily  governed  by  his 
views  on  Sunday  observance,  Sunday  trading  and  Sabbatari¬ 
anism  generally.  Let  it  be  noted  at  the  outset  that  he  was  no 
advocate  of  the  Continental  Sunday  :  he  was  all  for  keeping 
Sunday  quiet,  even  dull.  But  against  any  legal  or  other  re¬ 
strictions,  which  thwarted  poor  people’s  innocent:  enjoyment 
and  recreation,  he  ranged  himself  as  an  uncompromising  ad¬ 
versary.  As  we  have  seen,  he  indignantly  resented  the  fining  of 
boys  for  playing  cricket,  or  children  for  selling  sweets,  on  Sun¬ 
day.  He  supported  the  opening  of  museums  and  picture  galleries 
on  Sundays  as  early  as  August,  1842,  and,  in  recording  the 
defeat  of  the  motion  in  the  Commons,  ends  his  comments  on 
“The  Pharisees’  Sunday”  with  the  remark:  “The  Museum 
and  the  National  Gallery  are,  for  the  present,  closed  on 
Sundays;  so  for  a  time  there  are  left  for  the  people — the  Eagle 
Tavern  and  the  Red  House  at  Battersea.”  Punch  vehemently 
assailed  the  snobbery  which  sought  to  exclude  working  men 
and  poor  children  from  the  parks.  He  welcomed  the  open¬ 
ing  of  the  Zoological  Gardens  to  the  public  in  1848  at  a  low 
charge,  without  a  “Fellow’s  order,”  plus  a  shilling.  But  of 
all  the  movements  which  inspired  him  with  hope  for  the  future, 
none  offered  brighter  prospects  than  the  great  Exhibition  of 
1851.  It  was  Douglas  Jerrold  who  coined  the  name  of  the 
“Crystal  Palace.”  Punch  had  some  misgivings  as  to  the 
encroachment  of  the  buildings  on  public  amenities  and  rights, 
and  warmly  espoused  the  cause  of  Ann  Hicks,  whose  family 
for  1 18  years  had  held  possession  of  an  apple  stall  in  Hyde 
Park.  Her  grandfather,  it  was  alleged,  had  saved  George  II 
from  drowning  in  the  Serpentine !  The  stall  was  removed 
and  Ann  Hicks  allowed  five  shillings  a  week  for  one  year, 
but,  largely  owing  to  Punch’s  intervention,  was  assisted  to 
emigrate  to  Australia.  And  Punch  was  indignant  at  the 
suggested  exclusion  of  the  public  on  the  opening  day,  May  1, 
1851,  for  fear  of  annoying  the  Royal  family.  But  these  mis¬ 
givings  were  happily  removed,  and  the  opening  of  the  Ex¬ 
hibition  marked  a  turning  point  in  the  long  campaign  of 
criticism,  frank  to  the  verge  of  discourtesy  and  indecorum, 
sometimes  justified,  but  often  malicious,  which  Punch  had 

40 


4i 


SPECIMEN  OF  MR  PUNCH’S  INDUSTRIAL  EXHIBITION  OF  1850  (TO  BE 

IMPROVED  IN  1851) 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern-  England 


conducted  against  the  Court  in  general  and  the  Prince  Consort 
in  particular.  lie  made  the  amende  handsomely  in  his  “own 
report  of  the  opening  of  the  great  Exhibition”:  — 

At  length  a  cheer  without,  and  a  flourish  of  trumpets  within, 
announce  the  arrival  of  the  Queen — and  the  Prince,  who,  by  the  idea 
of  this  Exhibition,  has  given  to  Royal  Consortship  a  new  glory,  or, 
rather,  has  rendered  for  ever  illustrious,  in  his  own  case,  a  position 
too  often  vibrating  between  the  mischievous  and  the  insignificant. 
Prince  Albert  has  done  a  great  service  to  humanity,  and  earned 
imperishable  fame  for  himself  by  an  idea,  the  greatness  of  which, 
instead  of  becoming  less,  will  appear  still  greater  as  it  recedes  from 
us.  Beyond  comparison,  the  most  gratifying  incident  of 

the  day  was  the  promenade  of  the  Queen  and  Prince,  holding  by 
the  hand  their  two  eldest  children,  through  the  whole  of  the  lower 
range  of  the  building.  It  was  a  magnificent  lesson  for  foreigners — 
and  especially  for  the  Prussian  princes,  who  cannot  stir  abroad  with¬ 
out  an  armed  escort — to  see  how  securely  and  confidently  a  young 
female  Sovereign  and  her  family  could  walk  in  the  closest  possible 
contact,  near  enough  to  be  touched  by  almost  everyone,  with  five- 
and-twenty  thousand  people,  selected  from  no  class,  and  requiring 
only  the  sum  of  forty-two  shillings  as  a  qualification  for  the  nearest 
proximity  with  royalty.  Here  was  a  splendid  example  of  that  real 
freedom  on  the  one  hand,  and  perfect  security  on  the  other,  which  are 
the  result  of  our  constitutional  monarchy,  and  which  all  the  despotism 
and  republicanism  of  the  world  cannot  obtain  elsewhere,  let  them  go 
on  as  long  as  they  may,  executing  each  other  in  the  name  of  order, 
or  cutting  each  other’s  throats  in  the  name  of  liberty. 

The  only  blot,  as  we  thought,  upon  the  whole  proceedings  were 
the  unnatural  and  crab-like  movements  of  one  of  our  wealthiest  peers, 
the  Marquess  of  Westminster,  and  his  fellow-official,  the  Lord 
Chamberlain,  whose  part  in  the  pageant  consisted  of  the  difficult, 
but  not  very  dignified,  feat  of  walking  backwards  during  the 
progress  of  the  procession.  We  hope  the  time  is  not  far  distant 
when,  among  the  other  sensible  arrangements  of  the  present 
reign,  a  wealthy  nobleman  may  be  released  from  the  humiliation 
of  having  to  perform  before  the  Sovereign  and  the  public  a  series 
of  awkward  evolutions,  which  not  all  the  skill  of  the  posture- 
master  can  redeem  from  the  absurdity  attaching  to  the  contortions 
of  the  mountebank. 

Punch  could  not  resist  having  a  dig  at  the  aristocrat 
courtiers,  but  he  had  nothing  but  praise  for  the  Oueen  and 
the  Prince  Consort,  and  especially  for  their  practice  of  visit- 

42 


The  People  s  Palace 


ing  the  Exhibition  on  the  “shilling  days.”  As  he  put  it  in 
the  lines  “Victoria  Felix  : — 

Heaven’s  duteous  sunshine  waits  upon  her  going, 

And  with  it  blends  a  sunshine  brighter  still — 

The  loyal  love  of  a  great  people,  knowing 
That  building  up  is  better  than  o’erthrowing ; 

That  freedom  lies  in  taming  of  self-will. 

Punch’s  loyalty  to  the  Sovereign,  however,  did  not  cause 
him  to  forget  the  workers.  He  suggests  to  Prince  Albert  that 
a  dinner  should  be  given  to  the  workmen  who  erected  the 
building..  As  for  Paxton,  the  architect,  Punch  agreed  with 
the  Examiner  that  a  knighthood  was  not  a  sufficient  reward 
for  his  services,  and  suggested  that  he  should  be  given  a  share 
of  the  profits.  But  Punch  was  from  the  first  concerned  with 
the  future  of  the  building;  with  the  possibilities  of  transform¬ 
ing  it  into  a  permanent  People’s  Palace.  So  when  Paxton 
asked  “What  is  to  become  of  the  Crystal  Palace?”  and 
answered  his  own  question  by  saying  “Let  the  Crystal  Palace 
become  a  winter  park  under  glass,”  with  rare  flowers  and 
plants  and  a  colossal  aviary,  Punch  voted  the  suggestion 
of  the  Crystal  Magician  “delightful  and  practicable,”  for,  as 
he  notes,  on  the  testimony  of  “the  princely  Devonshire,  Mr. 
Paxton  never  failed  in  anything  he  undertook.”  Nay,  Punch 
went  so  far  as  to  depict,  in  a  cartoon,  John  Bull  contemplating 
the  marvels  of  the  winter  garden.  The  scheme  lapsed,  and  in 
the  spring  of  1852  Punch  was  indignant  at  the  imminent  sale 
of  the  Crystal  Palace,  and  lavish  of  gibes  at  the  “nobs  and 
snobs  ”  who  despised  the  masses  :  — 

THE  PEOPLE  AND  THEIR  PALACE 

The  People  !  I  weally  am  sick  of  the  wawd  : 

The  People  is  ugly,  unpleasant,  absawd ; 

Wha-evaw  they  go,  it  is  always  the  case, 

They  are  shaw  to  destwoy  all  the  chawm  of  the  place. 

They  are  all  vewy  well  in  their  own  pwopa  spheeaw, 

A  long  distance  off;  but  I  don’t  like  them  neeaw; 

The  slams  is  the  place  faw  a  popula  show; 

Don’t  encouwage  the  People  to  spoil  Wotten  Wow. 

43 


Mr.  Pi  inch's  History  of  Modern  England 


It  is  odd  that  the  Duke  of  Awgyll  could  pasue 
So  eccentric  a  cawse,  and  Lad  Shaftesbuwy  too, 

As  to  tvvy  and  pwesawve  the  Glass  House  on  its  site, 

Faw  no  weason  on  awth  but  the  People’s  delight. 

The  Oueen,  in  an  excellent  parody  of  “The  May  Queen,” 
is  credited  with  the  desire  to  keep  up  the  Palace;  Punch  threw 
all  his  weight  on  the  side  of  Paxton  in  his  efforts  to  defeat 
the  obstructives,  and  when,  in  June,  1852,  the  move  to  Syden¬ 
ham  was  finally  decided  on,  he  prophesied  a  great  future  for 
that  favoured  suburb.  The  “christening”  took  place  in 
August,  and  furnished  Punch  with  an  opportunity  for 
answering  the  reproach  that  “the  English  don’t  know  how 
to  amuse  themselves”  :  — 

The  great  cause  of  Peace  had  every  fitting  honour  paid  to  it  on 
Thursday  last  at  Sydenham.  In  its  train  followed  some  of  the 
greatest  celebrities  of  the  day,  all  children  of  the  people,  who  had 
come  to  assist  at  the  christening  of  their  new  Palace.  The  Arts  and 
Sciences,  of  course,  were  there,  and  gave  the  cause  their  blessing, 
until  such  time  when  they  could  give  it  something,  if  not  more  pure, 
at  least  more  tangible.  Literature,  too,  was  there,  and  promised  to 
devote  its  best  pen  to  the  service  of  the  new  principle,  and  Trade  and 
Commerce  had  already  sent  off  their  ships  to  collect  treasure  to  pour 
into  the  lap  of  their  beautiful,  but  too  long  neglected  child,  as  soon  as 
the  Palace  was  in  a  fit  state  to  receive  them.  And  the  Poor 
advanced,  and,  opening  their  hearts,  gave  the  cause  their  best  wishes 
—and  these  were  deposited  with  the  coins  of  the  realm,  and  are  to 
form  the  foundation  of  the  new  building.  Never  was  Palace  begun 
upon  so  strong  a  foundation  before  ! 

If  only  half  the  promises  are  fulfilled  that  were  made  at  its 
christening,  this  Palace  of  the  People  will  be  the  grandest  palace 
ever  constructed.  And,  in  truth,  it  should  be  so  !  The  people  have 
built  palaces  sufficiently  for  others;  it  is  but  proper  now  they  built 
one  for  themselves. 

And  when  it  is  built  it  will  be  time  enough  to  inquire  if  English¬ 
men  know  how  to  amuse  themselves.  They  have  had  hitherto  so 
few  opportunities  of  learning,  that  it  is  ungracious  to  ask  at  present. 
In  the  meantime  we  wish  them  every  enjoyment  in  their  new  play¬ 
ground  at  Sydenham.  It  will  be  the  most  beautiful  playground  in 
the  world. 

Punch’s  generous  anticipations,  in  part  illusory,  were 
mingled  with  wrath  against  militant  Sabbatarians,  over-zealous 

44 


Sabbatarian  Solicitude 


for  the  souls  of  their  fellow-creatures.  A  deputation,  headed 
by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Bishops  of  London  and 
Winchester,  and  the  Earl  of  Shaftesbury,  lost  no  time  in 
waiting  on  Lord  Derby,  in  order  to  urge  upon  the  Prime 
Minister  “the  expediency  of  adopting  measures  to  prevent  the 
Crystal  Palace,  or  its  grounds,  being  opened  to  the  public  on 
Sundays.”  Punch  is  bitterly  sarcastic  against  this 

condescending  solicitude  on  the  part  of  peers  and  prelates  for  the 
spiritual  welfare  of  the  vulgar  cockneys,  snips,  snobs,  mechanics, 
shopmen,  and  their  womenkind ;  creatures  that  not  only  consume  tea 
and  shrimps,  periwinkles,  and  ginger-beer,  but  also  smoke  pipes 
and  penny  Pickwicks !  The  people  must  feel  flattered  that  they 
are  thus  sympathized  with  by  the  superior  classes;  only  perhaps 
they  would  rather  the  sympathy  were  shown  otherwise  than  by 
excluding  them  from  pure  air  and  enjoyment — in  great  tenderness 
for  their  immortal  part,  but  with  small  consideration  for  their 
perishable  lungs. 

But  the  attack  was  not  solely  based  on  religious  grounds. 
The  Morning  Herald  scented  revolution  in  the  proposal,  and 
Punch  was  moved  to  address  an  ironical  warning  to  the  Home 
Secretary  :  — 

A  word  in  your  ear,  Mr.  Walpole.  There  is  treason,  hydra¬ 
headed  treason  hatching.  Now,  we  are  not  joking.  Were  we  in¬ 
clined  to  be  droll,  we  would  not  cast  our  jokes  before  certain  Home 
Secretaries.  Hush  !  This  way.  In  a  corner,  if  you  please. 

Do  you  ever  see  the  Morning  Herald?  We  thought  so.  Some¬ 
how,  you  look  as  if  you  did.  Still,  we  have  brought  a  copy.  Here 
it  is.  A  leader  on  the  treasonous  atrocities  contemplated  by  the 
traitorous  projectors  of  the  Crystal  Palace  in  Penge  Park  !  We  will 
read  you — when  we  can  get  a  good  mouthful  of  breath — a  few  of  the 
lines:  the  dreadful  lines.  You  see,  the  Palace  is  to  be  open  on 
Sundays  after  one  o’clock.  In  that  fact  the  Herald  sees  revolution, 
anarchy,  and  perhaps — a  future  republic  with  John  Cromwell  Bright 
in  Buckingham  Palace  !  Listen  : 

“  ‘  Go  to  mass  on  the  Sabbath  morning  ’  is  the  Church  of  Rome’s 
command;  ‘  then  go  to  the  park,  the  ball,  or  the  theatre.’  That  is 
the  Sabbath  of  Paris,  of  Munich,  of  Vienna,  and,  we  are  sorry  to 
say,  of  Berlin  also.  And,  as  one  natural  result,  a  single  month,  in 
1848,  saw  the  Sovereigns  of  Paris,  of  Vienna,  of  Munich,  and  of 
Berlin  fugitives  before  their  rebellious  subjects.  The  people  of  Eng- 

45 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


land  remained  untouched  by  this  sudden  madness ;  they  were  loyal  to 
their  Queen,  because  they  feared  their  God  !  ” 

You  will  perceive,  Right  Honourable  Sir,  that  had  the  Palace 
existed  in  Penge  Park  in  1848,  the  British  Throne  would  have  gone 
to  bits  like  a  smashed  decanter.  The  Queen  has  only  continued  to 
reign  because  there  has  been  no  People’s  Palace! 

We  see,  Sir,  you  are  moved,  but  let  us  go  on. 

“The  Crystal  Palace  will  be  the  main  engine  for  introducing  the 
Continental  Sabbath  among  us.  The  people  may  go  to  church,  it  will 
be  said,  and  then  they  may  go  down  to  Sydenham  and  enjoy  a  walk 
in  the  Crystal  Palace,  and  what  harm  can  that  do?  Just  all  the 
harm  in  the  world.  Open  and  naked  profaneness  would  shock  most 
persons,  but  this  mixture  of  religion  and  dissipation  will  ruin 
myriads  !  ” 

Punch,  on  the  contrary,  believed  that,  in  spite  of  the 
fulminations  of  Exeter  Hall,  the  Crystal  Palace,  with  its  art 
treasures,  ancl  the  setting  provided  by  the  wonder-working 
Paxton,  would  become  the  People’s  Sunday  School,  and  a 
monster  extinguisher  of  gin  palaces.  So  we  find  him  printing 
a  mock  protest  from  publicans  against  the  desecration  of  the 
Sabbath  by  the  proposed  opening  of  the  Crystal  Palace  after 
morning  service. 

Punch's  views  on  temperance  were  eminently  moderate.  It 
is  true  that  in  one  of  his  early  numbers  he  had  depicted,  in 
the  cartoons  of  “The  Gin  Drop”  and  “The  Water  Drop,” 
the  horrors  of  drunkenness  in  the  vein  of  Cruickshank;  true 
also  that  he  expressed  admiration  for  the  crusade  of  Father 
Mathew.  He  condemned  excess,  but  he  was  no  enemy  of 
conviviality.  Indeed  he  was  up  in  arms  against  those  who 
sought  to  “rob  a  poor  man  of  his  beer.”  In  his  view  the  best 
antidotes  to  intemperance  were  to  be  found  in  recreation  and 
education,  and  in  using  Sunday  to  promote  those  ends.  Pie 
severely  criticised  in  the  autumn  of  1845  the  provisions  of  the 
new  Beer  Bill,  which  prevented  excursionists  from  obtaining 
needful  refreshment  at  an  inn,  not  only  at  unreasonable,  but  at 
reasonable  hours,  and  protested  against  the  closing  of  these 
hospitable  portals  against  them  on  Sunday,  “and  perhaps  very 
soon  on  every  other  day,  if  gentlemen,  who  can  go  to  clubs, 
as  well  as  to  church,  being  blest  with  affluence,  and,  therefore, 

46 


Punch  at  the  Palace 


belonging  to  the  better  classes,  continue  to  legislate  in  their 
present  spirit  for  himself  (the  excursionist)  and  the  rest  of  the 
worse — that  is  the  worse  off.” 

Meanwhile  the  Crystal  Palace  had  been  opened  by  the 
Queen  on  Saturday,  June  io,  1854.  Punch  describes  the 
imaginary  visit  which  he  paid  a  few  days  earlier  to  inspect 
the  building  and,  by  special  command  of  the  Queen,  to  report 
as  to  its  probable  readiness  for  her  reception  on  the  opening 
day.  After  being  conducted  through  the  building  by  Sir  Joseph 
Paxton,  he  explained  that  it  was  not  his  intention  to  be  present 
at  the  inaugural  ceremony  : — 

He  was  the  godfather  of  the  edifice,  having  originally  invented 
and  conferred  upon  it  the  title  of  the  Crystal  Palace ;  but  he  should 
leave  to  his  friend  the  Archbishop  the  entire  solemnities  of  the  day, 
including  an  announcement  which  Dr.  Sumner  had  most  kindly 
undertaken  to  make,  namely,  that  at  the  special  instance  of  the 
Queen,  arrangements  would  be  at  once  effected  for  opening  the 
Palace  on  Sundays. 

Fact  is  tempered  with  fancy  in  this  account,  as  well  as  in 
his  optimistic  report  of  the  meeting  of  Crystal  Palace  share¬ 
holders  ;  it  characterizes,  too,  the  series  of  humorous  handbooks 
to  the  Crystal  Palace,  which  appeared  in  the  pages  of  Punch  in 
the  following  months.  But  we  find  in  the  remarks  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Mr.  Laing,  the  chairman,  a  very  good  summary 
of  his  own  views:  — 

On  reflection  it  had  been  thought  better  that  men,  under  the 
crystal  roof,  should  temperately  refresh  themselves — all  mutually 
sustaining  one  another  even  by  their  own  self-respect  of  the  decencies 
of  life,  there  and  then  in  their  own  Crystal  Palace — than  that,  turned 
away  hungering  and  athirst,  they  should  be  absorbed  in  the  holes 
and  corners  of  surrounding  public-houses. 

The  subsequent  history  of  the  Crystal  Palace  hardly  fulfilled 
Punch’s  sanguine  expectations  of  its  future  as  a  great  people’s 
playground  and  school.  Intermittently  it  fulfilled  this  func¬ 
tion,  but  as  an  educational  institution  it  served  the  needs  of  the 
suburban  residents  rather  than  those  of  the  great  public;  its 
entertainments  were  in  the  main  supported  by  the  patronage  of 

47 


Mr.  P iincJi  s  History  of  Modern  England 


the  middle  and  well-to-do  classes.  As  years  went  on  the  Crystal 
Palace,  owing  to  its  distance  from  London,  suffered  seriously 
from  the  competition  of  the  series  of  exhibitions  at  Earl’s 
Court.  Yet  one  who  is  old  enough,  as  the  present  writer 
is,  to  remember  visits  in  his  school  days  in  the  early  ’seventies 
— recurrent  Handel  festivals  from  the  days  when  Costa  was 
conductor  and  Patti  was  in  her  golden  prime;  flower  and  dog 
and  cat  shows;  the  glory  of  the  rhododendron  shrubberies; 
pantomimes  and  firework  displays;  and,  above  all,  the  admir¬ 
able  Saturday  concerts,  which  drew  musical  London  for  some 
forty  years — such  a  one,  and  there  must  be  many  like  him, 
will  always  look  back  on  the  Crystal  Palace  with  grateful  affec¬ 
tion,  and  hold  in  reverence  the  names  of  Paxton  and  Ferguson, 
George  Grove  and  August  Manns,  and  many  other  good  men 
and  true  who  laboured  to  realize  Punch’s  ideal. 


48 


CHARTISM 


WE  have  seen  that  Punch  did  not  belittle  the  Chartist 
movement,  but  admitted  the  evils,  political,  social,  and 
economic,  out  of  which  it  sprang.  So  did  some  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Young  England  group  (see  Sybil),  but  Punch 
ridiculed  their  remedies.  He  was  out  of  touch  alike  with 
Whigs,  Tories,  and  Churchmen,  especially  the  Traotarians,  who 
denounced  the  men  who  tempted  the  people  to  rail  against 
their  rulers  and  superiors. 

Punch,  too,  did  a  good  deal  in  this  line.  But  while  he  recog¬ 
nized  the  sincerity  and  earnestness  of  Chartism,  he  distrusted  the 
methods  of  the  extremists,  and  his  distrust  was  largely  justified 
by  the  history  of  the  movement.  The  cleavage  between  the 
advocates  of  moral  and  physical  force  showed  itself  from  the 
very  beginning,  and  the  fiasco  of  1848  was  largely  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  leading  spirits  of  Chartism  had  already  declared 
themselves  against  it,  or  actually  withdrawn  from  the  move¬ 
ment.  Of  the  famous  Six  Points  of  the  People’s  Charter  of 
1838,  three  have  been  conceded — No  Property  Qualifications, 
Vote  by  Ballot,  and  Payment  of  Members — and  we  have  come 
very  near  the  realization  of  Universal  Suffrage  and  Equal 
Representation.  The  demand  for  Annual  Parliaments  alone 
remains  unsatisfied.  Yet  Lovett,  who  drafted  the  Charter, 
and  was  imprisoned  in  1839  with  other  Chartist  leaders  after 
the  riots  in  Birmingham,  emerged  from  gaol  more  than  ever 
an  advocate  of  moral  force,  joined  Sturge  in  his  efforts  to 
reconcile  the  Chartists  and  the  middle  class  reformers,  and 
after  1842  took  no  further  part  in  the  Chartist  movement.  In 
the  years  of  riots  and  fires  and  strikes  and  starvation  that 
followed  the  rejection  of  the  second  National  Petition  in  1842, 
the  leaders  were,  with  few  exceptions,  engulfed  in  a  tide  which 
they  were  unable  to  control.  Feargus  O’Connor  was  one  of 
e— 1  49 


NOT  SO  VERY  UNREASONABLE  !  EH? 

John:  “  My  Mistress  says  she  hopes  you  won’t  call  a  meeting  of 
her  creditors  ;  but  if  you  will  leave  your  Bill  in  the  usual  way,  it 
shall  be  properly  attended  to.” 


50 


The  Fight  for  Cheap  Bread 


the  exceptions,  but  his  success  in  inducing  the  Chartists  to 
repudiate  the  Corn  Law  Repeal  agitation,  and  the  disastrous 
failure  of  his  agrarian  scheme  at  Watford,  alienated  many  of 
the  old  Chartists.  Ebenezer  Elliott,  the  Corn  Law  rhymer, 
withdrew  from  the  movement,  which  he  had  actively  supported, 
in  order  to  devote  all  his  energies  to  the  repeal  of  the  hated 
“bread  tax,”  and  happily  lived  long  enough  to  see  it  abolished. 
Punch,  who  had  pronounced  its  dirge  in  February,  1849,  with 
the  legend  “obiit.  February  1,  1849,  aged  34,”  was  heart  and 
soul  with  the  Corn  Law  rhymer.  Repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws 
was  the  deepest  principle  in  his  early  life,  and  he  was  too 
angry  to  do  justice  to  Peel,  denouncing  him  as  a  “political 
eel”;  an  infringer  of  Dickens’s  copyright  in  Pecksniff;  attack¬ 
ing  his  policy  of  “wait  awhile,”  much  as  later  critics  attacked 
the  policy  of  “wait  and  see  ”;  and  even  when  Peel’s  conver¬ 
sion  was  complete,  refusing  to  acknowledge  any  virtue  in  it. 
When  Punch  was  bracketed  with  Peel  as  an  opponent  of  the 
Corn  Laws  he  indignantly  repudiated  the  association  :  he  at 
least  had  never  turned  his  coat.  One  cannot  help  feeling  that 
remorse  must  have  mingled  with  admiration  in  his  posthumous 
tributes  to  the  statesman  “who  gave  the  people  bread.”  But 
there  were  no  prickings  of  conscience  in  the  welcome  extended 
by  him  in  1850  to  the  proposal  (realized  in  1854)  to  erect  a 
statue  to  Ebenezer  Elliott  at  Sheffield  :  — 

The  true-tempered  men  of  Sheffield  are  about  to  do  a  new  honour 
to  themselves  by  honouring  the  memory  of  Ebenezer  Elliott,  the  man 
whose  wise  pen  drew  up  the  indictment  against  that  public  robber, 
Corn  Law  :  and  never  was  indictment  better  drawn  for  conviction, 
though  a  rare  success  attended  the  novel  deed,  for  it  was  only  worded 
with  common  words,  the  words  themselves  hot  and  glowing  with 
hate  of  wrong.  Elliott  struck  from  his  subject — as  the  blacksmith 
strikes  from  the  red  iron — sparkles1  of  burning'  light;  and  where  they 
fell  they  consumed.  His  homely  indignation  was  sublimed  by  the 
intensity  of  his  honesty  :  if  his  words  were  homely,  they  were  made 
resistless  by  the  inexorable  purpose  that  uttered  them.  But  the  man 
had  the  true  heart  and  soul  of  the  poet,  and  could  love  the  simple 

i  Elliott  himself  said  :  “  My  feelings  have  been  hammered  until  they  have 
become  cold — short,  and  are  apt  to  snap  and  fly  off  in  sarcasms  ”  (D.N.B. 
xvii.,  267). 


51 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  Engl  ana 


and  beautiful  as  passionately  as  he  denounced  the  selfish  and  the 
mean. 

The  Corn-Law  Rhymes  did  greatest  service.  They  were  the 
earliest  utterances  of  a  people  contending-  with  a  sense  of  inarticulate 
suffering.  They  supplied  the  words ;  they  gave  a  voice  and  meaning 
to  the  labouring  heart,  and  the  true  poet  vindicated  his  fine  mission 
by  making  his  spirit  pass  into  the  spirit  of  the  many. 

Time  rolled  on  and  Corn  Law  was  condemned.  The  indictment 
drawn  by  the  poet  was  the  draft  afterwards  improved ;  but  Ebenezer 
Elliott  was  the  first  drawer;  and  honoured  be  the  men  of  Sheffield 
who  seek  to  do  monumental  homage  to  their  patriotic  poet !  We 
have  plenty  of  modern  statues  to  the  sword,  it  is  full  time  we  had 
one  to  the  pen. 

Meanwhile  the  Chartist  movement,  weakened  by  defections 
and  dissensions,  and  by  the  dissipation  of  its  energies  on  a 
mixed  programme,  which  antagonized  all  classes,  damped  by 
the  constant  rains  which  fell  at  every  meeting  and  drenched 
the  fires  of  revolution,  was  marching  steadily  to  disintegration. 
Punch’s  distrust  of  the  professional  agitator  is  expressed  in  a 
bitter  portrait  published  in  the  spring  of  1848  :  — 

THE  MODEL  AGITATOR 

The  only  thing  he  flatters  is  the  mob.  Nothing  is  too  sweet  for 
them ;  every  word  is  a  lump  of  sugar.  He  flatters  their  faults,  feeds 
their  prejudices  with  the  coarsest  stimulants,  and  paints,  for  their 
amusement,  the  blackest  things  white.  He  is  madly  cheered  in 
consequence.  In  time  he  grows  into  an  idol.  But  cheers  do  not 
pay,  however  loud.  The  most  prolonged  applause  will  not  buy  a 
mutton  chop.  The  hat  is  carried  round,  the  pennies  rain  into  it,  and 
the  Agitator  pours  them  into  his  patriotic  pocket.  It  is  suddenly 
discovered  that  he  has  made  some  tremendous  sacrifice  for  the 
people.  The  public  sympathy  is  first  raised,  then  a  testimonial, 
then  a  subscription.  He  is  grateful,  and  promises  the  Millennium. 
The  trade  begins  to  answer,  and  he  fairly  opens  shop  as  a  Licensed 
Agitator.  He  hires  several  journeymen  with  good  lungs,  and  sends 
agents — patriotic  bagmen — round  the  country  to  sell  his  praises  and 
insults,  the  former  for  himself,  and  the  latter  for  everybody  else. 
Every  paper  that  speaks  the  truth  of  him  is  publicly  hooted  at;  every¬ 
body  who  opposes  him  is  pelted  with  the  hardest  words  selected  from 
the  Slang  Dictionary.  A  good  grievance  is  started,  and  hunted 
everywhere.  People  join  in  the  cry,  the  Agitator  leading  off  and 

52 


The  Professional  Agitator 


PUNCH’S  MONUMENT  TO  PEEL 


shouting  the  loudest.  The  grievance  is  run  off  its  legs ;  but  another 
and  another  soon  follows,  till  there  is  a  regular  pack  of  them.  The 
country  is  in  a  continual  ferment,  and  at  last  rises.  Riots  ensue ; 
but  the  Model  Agitator  is  the  last  person  to  suffer  from  them.  He 
excites  the  people  to  arm  themselves  for  the  worst ;  but  begs  they 
will  use  no  weapons.  His  talk  is  incendiary,  his  advice  nothing  but 
gunpowder,  and  yet  he  hopes  no  explosion  will  take  place.  He  is  an 
arsenal  wishing  to  pass  for  a  chapel  or  a  baby-linen  warehouse. 
He  is  all  peace,  all  love,  and  yet  his  hearers  grow  furious  as  they 
listen  to  him,  and  rush  out  to  burn  ricks  and  shoot  landlords.  He  is 
always  putting  his  head  on  the  block.  Properly  speaking  he  is 
beheaded  once  a  quarter. 

A  monster  meeting  is  his  great  joy,  to  be  damped  only  by  the 
rain  [the  great  open-air  meetings  of  the  Chartists  were  uniformly 

53 


Mr.  Punch's  History  oy  Modern  England 


unfortunate  in  their  weather]  or  the  police.  He  glories  in  a  prosecu¬ 
tion.  He  likes  to  be  prosecuted.  He  asks  for  it;  shrieks  out  to  the 
Government,  “Why  don’t  you  prosecute  me?  ”  and  cries  and  gets 
quite  mad  if  they  will  not  do  it.  The  favour  at  length  is  granted. 
He  is  thrown  into  prison  and  gets  fat  upon  it ;  for  from  that  moment 
he  is  a  martyr,  and  paid  as  one,  accordingly. 

The  Model  Agitator  accumulates  a  handsome  fortune,  which  he 
bequeathes  to  his  sons,  with  the  following  advice,  which  is  a  rich 
legacy  of  itself  :  “If  you  wish  to  succeed  as  an  Ag'itator,  you  must 
buy  your  patriotism  in  the  cheapest  market  and  sell  it  in  the  dearest.” 

The  monster  demonstration  of  1848,  as  a  recent  writer1 
puts  it,  “was  the  funeral  of  Chartism  with  the  Duke  of  Welling¬ 
ton  as  the  Master  of  Ceremonies.”  Hopes  of  a  general  rising 
had  been  kindled  by  the  revolution  in  Paris,  but  they  were 
not  fulfilled.  The  annus  mirabilis  which  set  thrones  rocking 
on  the  Continent  and  toppled  down  that  of  Louis  Philippe 
passed  in  the  main  peacefully  in  England.  Feargus  O’Connor’s 
monster  procession  and  petition  on  April  10  ended  in  fiasco, 
largely  owing  to  the  precautions  taken  by  the  Duke  of  Welling¬ 
ton  as  Commander-in-Chief — the  swearing  in  of  170,000  special 
constables  (including  Louis  Napoleon  !)  and  his  wise  decision 
to  keep  the  troops  as  far  as  possible  out  of  sight.  It  is  right 
to  record  the  fact  that  Punch  was  not  moved  by  these  events 
to  desert  his  “left-centre  ”  position;  that  he  advocated  amnesty 
rather  than  reprisals.  In  September,  1849,  he  published  his 
special  “Chartist  Petition  to  the  Queen’s  Most  Excellent 
Majesty  ”  :  — 

MAY  IT  PLEASE  YOUR  MAJESTY— 

WHEREAS  Death,  the  great  Gaol-Deliverer,  has  by  Cholera  set 
free  from  Westminster  Prison,  Joseph  Williams  and  Alexander 
Sharpe,  foolish  men,  foolishly  preaching  the  Charter,  by  means  of 
pike  and  blunderbuss — 

Punch  humbly  prays  that  your  Majesty  will,  in  this  season  of 
political  tranquillity,  and  of  grave  moral  chastisement,  give  orders 
for  the  release  of  certain  misguided  men,  it  is  hoped  better  instructed 
for  the  future — and  thereupon  pardon  and  set  free  William  Vernon, 
Ernest  Jones,  Little  Cuffey,  and  other  such  offenders,  now  made 


C.  R.  Fay  in  “  Life  and  Labour  in  the  "Nineteenth  Century,”  p.  166. 

54 


Little  Cuffey  ” 


harmless  by  the  common  sense  and  common  loyalty  of  the  English 
people. 

And  your  Petitioner  will  ever  Print  and  Pray — 

PUNCH. 


Ernest  Jones  was  the  young  poet,  a  recent  recruit  of  Feargus 
O’Connor,  and  Cuffey  was  the  fiery  little  tailor  for  whom 
Punch  always  had  a  soft  corner  in  his  heart.  When  Sir 
George  Grey  an- 
n  o  u  n  c  e  d  that 
Cuffey  had  been 
included  in  the  list 
of  deported  pris¬ 
oners,  amnestied 
on  the  declaration 
of  peace  after  the 
Crimean  War, 

Punch  expressed 
his  satisfaction  at 
the  release  of  the 
“resolute,  fire-eat- 
i  n  g  but  withal 
frank-hearted  and 
honest  goose-hero 
of  Chartism.”  But 
of  much  greater 
importance  and 
significance  is  the 
striking  poem 
printed  in  the  issue 
of  June  16,  1849, 
which  may  be 

taken  as  the  best  condensed  summary  of  Punch’s  political  and 
social  creed  in  a  time  of  transition.  The  occasion  was  a  speech 
of  Lord  John  Russell  in  the  House,  declining  to  entertain  pro¬ 
posals  for  an  extension  of  the  franchise.  Lord  John,  it  may  be 
recalled,  was  nicknamed  “Finality  Jack  ”  for  saying  in  a  debate 
on  the  Address  in  1837  that  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  take 

55 


SPECIAL’S  Wife  :  “  Contrary  to  regulations,  indeed  ! 
Fiddlesticks!  1  must  insist,  Frederick,  upon  your 
taking  tfiis  hot  brandy-and-water.  I  shall  be  having 
you  laid  up  next,  and  not  fit  for  anything.” 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


part  in  further  measures  of  electoral  reform.  Punch  held  that 
the  collapse  of  the  physical  force  movement,  so  far  from  prompt¬ 
ing-  a  lethargic  acquiescence  in  the  existing  regime,  ought 
to  stir  men  of  good  will  to  further  efforts  in  order  to  remove 
legitimate  grounds  of  discontent  :  — 

THE  TENTH  OF  APRIL  TO  LORD  JOHN  RUSSELL 

My  name,  Lord  John,  is  pleasant  on  many  a  noble  tongue; 

I’ve  been  bepuffed,  bespeechified,  bedined,  bedrunk,  besung; 
Conservatism,  Finality,  Laissez-Faire  and  Statu  Quo, 

Are  glad  to  shake  hands  with  “the  Tenth,”  till  very  proud  I  grow. 

At  home,  abroad,  inside  and  out,  you  think  you  read  me  true, 

But  when  did  ever  Whig  know  man’s  or  people’s  heart  all  through? 
I  am  all  that  you  style  me,  when  your  praise  on  me  you  pour; 

All  that,  my  Lord,  but  take  my  word,  with  that  I’m  something  more. 

I  read  your  speech,  the  other  night,  when  Hume,  my  stout  old  friend, 
Asked  of  the  House,  as  you  did  once,  the  suffrage  to  extend. 

’Twas  the  use  you  then  made  of  my  name  that  hath  these  lines 
begot — 

Hear  what  the  Tenth  of  April  is,  and  hear  what  it  is  not. 

I  am  the  friend  of  Order,  but  Statu  Quo  I  loathe, 

The  Law  I  heed,  but  still  would  weed,  and  trim  and  guide  its  growth ; 
Finality,  your  present  love,  unlovely  is  to  me; 

That  “what  is,  is,”  proves  not,  I  wis,  that  what  is,  ought  to  be. 

“Content  ”  you  think  I  was,  and  so,  noways  for  change  athirst, 
Content  men  are  with  second  best,  in  preference  to  worst : 

Content  to  hold  up  half  a  truth,  when  all  truth  shakes  to  fall; 
Content  with  what  gives  half  a  loaf,  against  no  bread  at  all ! 

But  yet  no  ways  content,  Lord  John,  to  see  some  things  I  see, 

As  a  laughing  House  of  Commons,  and  a  helpless  Ministry, 

A  nation  little  taught,  a  Church  under-  and  overpaid, 

And  prone  Respectability  in  Mammon-service  laid. 

Great  towns  o’erbrimming  with  their  scum,  great  stews  of  plague 
and  sin ; 

Toil  that  should  proudly  bear  itself,  in  grossness  sunk  and  gin  ; 
Crime  stored  away  to  ripen  in  settlement  and  gaol; 

The  rich  for  wealth,  the  poor  for  want,  alike  forpined  and  pale. 

56 


Reform  or  Revolution  ? 


Then  think,  my  Lord,  and  you,  his  friends,  who  deem  those  overbold, 
That  bid  you  move  along  the  paths  you  entered  on  of  old, 

Think  how  delay  may  order  with  anarchy  combine, 

And  to  disaffection’s  vinegar  turn  loyalty’s  strong  wine. 

Mistake  me  not  for  what  I’m  not,  know  me  for  what  I  am, 

The  nursing  mother  of  Reform,  not  Revolution’s  dam ; 

Mine  is  the  spirit  that  erst  reared  our  England’s  throne  on  law, 
That  never  bore  a  lie  it  knew,  or  blinked  a  truth  it  saw. 

Nations  or  men,  we  may  not  rest — look  round  on  Europe’s  thrones 
Shattered  or  shaken — hearken  to  her  convulsive  groans — 

Ere  you  fool  us  with  Finality,  of  all  bad  pleas  the  worst, 

Think  ’tis  the  Tenth  of  April  you  invoke,  and  not  the  First. 

This  may  not  be  great  poetry,  but  it  is  and  remains  sound 
political  philosophy,  and  an  apologia  for  Chartism  as  inter¬ 
preted  by  the  saner  and  nobler  spirits  who  took  part  in  the 
movement,  endeavoured  to  control  it,  and  were  in  some  in¬ 
stances  engulfed  in  it.  The  Rebecca  Riots  in  South  Wales 
in  1842-3  are  little  more  than  a  name  to  most  of  the  present 
generation.  Few  of  those  who  connect  them  vaguely  with 
resentment  against  the  Turnpike  Laws  know  that  the  name 
arose  from  the  proclamations  issued  in  the  name  of  Rebecca, 
in  allusion  to  the  verse  in  Genesis  (xxiv.  60)  in  which  it  is 
promised  to  the  wife  of  Isaac  that  her  seed  shall  possess  “the 
gate  of  her  enemies.”  Six  years  later  there  were  still  160 
turnpikes  in  and  about  London,  and  Punch  declared  that 
Rebecca  was  needed  to  sweep  them  away.  “We  laugh  at  the 
French  for  their  passports;  they  may  with  equal  justice  laugh 
at  us  for  our  turnpikes.  At  all  events  the  passports  cost  very 
little,  whereas  you  cannot  go  three  miles  out  of  London  with¬ 
out  dipping  your  hand  into  your  pocket  two  or  three  times.” 

Emigration  at  this  time  was  hailed  by  many,  including 
Punch,  as  a  remedy  for  existing  discontent  with  conditions,  and 
in  the  cartoon  “Here  and  There,”  and  the  verses  “Know’st 
Thou  the  Land  where  the  Kangaroos  Bound?”  Punch  gives 
a  roseate  picture  of  Australia,  “deficient  in  mouths,  over¬ 
burdened  with  meat,”  and  urges  John  Bull  to  help  his  paupers 
to  go  thither  and  live  in  plenty  at  high  wages.  A  little 

57 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


time  later  the  Female  Emigration  Scheme,  started  by  Sidney 
Herbert  and  other  practical  philanthropists,  furnished  Punch 
with  a  text  for  his  oft-repeated  sermon  on  the  Two  Nations. 
The  writer  was  one  of  those  who  witnessed  the  departure  of 
a  party  of  thirty-eight  women  from  Fenchurch  Street  station 
for  Gravesend,  and  thence  to  Australia,  and  after  describing 
the  group,  their  homely  appearance  and  dress  and  manners, 
continues  in  a  vein  of  self-reproach  :  — 

What  a  confession  it  is  that  we  have  almost  all  been  obligred  to 
make  !  A  clear  and  earnest-minded  writer  gets  a  commission  from 
the  Morning  Chronicle  newspaper,  and  reports  upon  the  state  of  our 
poor  in  London ;  he  goes  amongst  labouring  people  and  poor  of  all 
kinds — and  brings  back  what?  A  picture  of  London  life  so  wonder¬ 
ful,  so  awful,  so  piteous  and  pathetic,  so  exciting  and  terrible,  that 
readers  of  romances  own  they  never  read  anything  like  to  it ;  and 
that  the  griefs,  struggles,  strange  adventures  here  depicted  exceed 
anything  that  any  of  us  could  imagine.  Yes  ;  and  these  wonders  and 
terrors  have  been  lying  by  your  door  and  mine  ever  since  we  had  a 
door  of  our  own.  We  had  but  to  go  a  hundred  yards  off  and  see, 
for  ourselves,  but  we  never  did.  Don’t  we  pay  poor-rates,  and  are 
they  not  heavy  enough  in  the  name  of  patience?  Very  true;  and  we 
have  our  own  private  pensioners,  and  give  away  some  of  our  super¬ 
fluity  very  likely.  You  are  not  unkind;  not  ungenerous.  But  of 
such  wondrous  and  complicated  misery  as  this  you  confess  you  had 
no  idea.  No.  How  should  you?  You  and  I — we  are  of  the  upper 
classes ;  we  have  had  hitherto  no  community  with  the  poor.  We 
never  speak  a  word  to  the  servant  who  waits  on  us  for  twenty  years ; 
we  condescend  to  employ  a  tradesman,  keeping  him  at  a  proper 
distance — mind,  of  course,  at  a  proper  distance;  we  laugh  at  his 
young  men  if  they  dance,  jig  and  amuse  themselves  like  their  betters, 
and  call  them  counter-jumpers,  snobs,  and  what  not ;  of  his  workmen 
we  know  nothing — how  pitilessly  they  are  ground  down,  how  they 
live  and  die,  here  close  by  us  at  the  backs  of  our  houses ;  until  some 
poet  like  Hood  wakes  and  sings  that  dreadful  Song  of  the  Shirt; 
some  prophet  like  Carlyle  rises  up  and  denounces  woe ;  some  clear¬ 
sighted  energetic  man  like  the  writer  of  the  Chronicle  travels  into  the 
poor  man’s  country  for  us,  and  comes  back  with  his  tale  of  terror 
and  wonder. 

Awful,  awful  poor  man’s  country !  The  bell  rings  and  then 
eight-and-thirty  women  bid  adieu  to  it,  rescued  from  it  (as  a  few 
more  thousands  will  be)  by  some  kind  people  who  are  interested  in 
their  behalf.  It  is  a  solemn  moment  indeed — for  those  who  (with 


The  Beginning  of  Better  Times 


the  few  thousands  who  will  follow  them)  are  leaving-  this  country 
and  escaping  from  the  question  between  rich  and  poor;  and  what 
for  those  who  remain?  But,  at  least,  those  who  go  will  remember 
that  in  their  misery  here  they  found  gentle  hearts  to  love  and  pity 
them,  and  generous  hands  to  give  them  succour,  and  will  plant  in 
the  new  country  their  grateful  tradition  of  the  old.  May  Heaven’s 
good  mercy  speed  them. 

Emigration  was  one  of  the  contributory  influences  which 
helped  to  end  the  hunger  of  the  Hungry  ’Forties.  The  repeal 
of  the  Corn  Laws  was  a  far  more  powerful  factor  in  the  revival 
of  prosperity,  and  the  efforts  of  Protection  to  raise  its 
diminished  head  met  with  consistent  derision  from  Punch, 
who  gloried  in  the  statistics  of  increasing  trade.  But  he  was 
no  Benthamite,  and  one  may  search  his  files  in  vain  for  any 
recognition  of  the  salutary  results  of  the  new  Poor  Law.  The 
famous  report  of  1834  was  drawn  up  by  men  who  were  largely 
inspired  by  the  doctrines  of  Bentham  and  Malthus,  and  their 
scientific  principles  were  repugnant  to  Punch.  There  is  really 
not  much  to  choose  between  his  criticisms  and  the  hostility  of 
the  Chartists  to  the  workhouses  or  “Bastilles”  of  the  new 
system.  In  his  zeal  for  pillorying  instances  of  harsh  adminis¬ 
tration  he  overlooked  the  real  improvement  effected  in  the  Act 
of  1834  in  the  rural  districts.  But  the  new  Poor  Law,  though 
it  was  followed  by  an  immediate  local  re-absorption  on  a  sounder 
economic  basis  of  agricultural  labour  and  a  migration  of  the 
surplus  elsewhither,  was  not  the  sole  cause  of  this  improve¬ 
ment.1  The  demand  for  labour  in  the  rapidly  expanding  in¬ 
dustries  of  railway  construction  and  coal  mining  was  an  even 
more  potent  instrument  of  relief.  Coal,  on  which  both  in¬ 
dustries  equally  depended  and  depend,  may  be  now  a  tyrant, 
but  it  was  in  a  sense  the  good  genius  of  the  ’forties,  though 
the  high  prices  paid  in  London  owing  to  extortionate  tolls 
caused  Punch  to  denounce  him  as  “Cruel  King  Coal  ”  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  poor  consumer. 

The  threat  of  revolution  passed,  but  the  diffusion  of  pros¬ 
perity  brought  with  it,  as  it  always  does,  further  demands 
for  increased  wages.  The  year  1853  was  so  notable  for  strikes 
1  See  C.  R.  Fay,  “  Life  and  Labour  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,”  p.  204. 

59 


Mr.  Punch's  History  0/  Modern  England 


that  Punch,  who  had  already  applauded  poor  needlewomen 
for  adopting  this  course,  and  suggested  it  to  poor  curates, 
felt  obliged  to  register  his  protest  :  — 

Really  John  Bull  may  almost  be  described  as  a  maniac  with  lucid 
intervals.  A  few  years  ago  it  was  the  railway  mania — a  very 
dangerous  frenzy.  .  .  .  The  mania  now  prevailing  is  one  which, 

if  not  attended  to,  may  perhaps  prove  troublesome.  This  is  the 
striking  mania.  Everybody  is  striking.  The  other  day  it  was  the 
cabmen;  now  it  is  the  dockyard  labourers;  the  policemen,  even,  have 
struck  and  thrown  down  their  staves.  Our  mechanics  have  so  far 
become  machines,  that,  like  clocks,  as  clocks  ought  to  be,  they  are 
all  striking  together.  Should  this  mania  spread,  we  shall  have 
striking  become  what  might  be  called  the  order,  but  that  it  will  be 
the  disorder,  of  the  day.  In  short,  almost  everybody  will  strike 
except  the  threshers,  the  smiths  and  the  pugilists.  With  all  this 
striking  though,  we  had  better  take  care  that  we  are  not  floored. 

As  for  the  efficacy  of  the  strike-weapon  in  general,  Punch’s 
view  is  summed  un  in  the  remark  which  he  puts  into  the  mouth 
of  a  working  man’s  wife  as  early  as  1853,  “Wot  good  did  strikes 
ever  do  the  pore  ?  ” 


60 


MACHINERY  AND  MONEY-MAKING 


IN  the  ’thirties  and  ’forties  the  triumphs  of  applied  science 
and  invention  had  already  begun  to  exert  an  immediate 
and  far-reaching  influence  on  national  prosperity  and  the 
economics  of  industrialism.  The  views  on  the  new  order  ex¬ 
pressed  in  Punch  reflect,  with  certain  variations,  the  enlightened 
moderation  of  the  class  of  which  he  was  the  spokesman.  The 
coming  of  the  age  of  steam  and  machinery  is  welcomed,  or 
accepted,  with  a  tempered  optimism.  He  approaches  the 
subject  mainly  as  a  critic  or  a  satirist  zealous  for  reform.  But 
on  two  notable  occasions  he  assumes  the  role  of  philosopher 
and  prophet.  The  first  was  in  January,  1842,  a  propos  of  a 
remark  made  by  Sir  Robert  Peel  that  increased  demand  for 
manufactures  would  only  increase  machine-power  :  — 

Machinery,  in  its  progress,  has  doubtless  been  the  origin  of 
terrible  calamity ;  it  has  made  the  strong  man  so  much  live  lumber. 
But  as  we  cannot  go  back,  and  must  go  on,  it  is  for  statesmen  and 
philosophers  to  prepare  for  the  crisis  as  surely  coming  as  the 
morning  light.  How,  when  machinery  is  multiplied — as  it  will  be — 
a  thousandfold?  How,  when  tens  of  thousand-thousand  hands  are 
made  idle  by  the  ingenuity  of  the  human  mind?  How,  when,  com¬ 
paratively  speaking,  there  shall  be  no  labour  for  man?  Will  the 
multitude  lie  down  and,  unrepining,  die?  We  think  not — we  are 
sure  not.  Then  will  rise — and  already  we  hear  the  murmur — a  cry, 
a  shout  for  an  adjustment  of  interests;  a  shout  that,  hard  as  it  is, 
will  strike  upon  the  heart  of  Mammon,  and  make  the  spoiler  tremble. 

We  put  this  question  to  Sir  Robert  Peel :  if  all  labour  done  by 
man  were  suddenly  performed  by  machine  power,  and  that  power  in 
the  possession  of  some  thousand  individuals — what  would  be  the  cry 
of  the  rest  of  the  race?  Would  not  the  shout  be,  “Share,  share”? 

The  steam-engine,  despite  of  themselves,  must  and  will  carry 
statesmen  back  to  first  principles.  As  it  is,  machinery  is  a  fiend  to 
the  poor ;  the  time  will  come  when  it  will  be  a  beneficent  angel. 

On  the  second  occasion,  in  May,  1844,  the  note  struck  in 
the  last  sentence  is  sounded  more  hopefully.  In  a  fantasy 

61 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


entitled  “The  May  Day  of  Steam,”  the  writer  notes  the  pass¬ 
ing  of  the  old  May  Day  and  foreshadows  Labour’s  appropria¬ 
tion  of  that  festival;  and  a  speech  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  a 
working  man  prophesying  the  ultimate  unmitigated  good  of 


Proposed  Unca. — 

RAILWAY  MAP  OF  ENGLAND  (A  PROPHECY) 


invention,  though  its  first  operation  created  great  inequality 
and  caused  misery  to  the  hand-worker.  But  for  the  most  part 
Picnch  is  concerned  with  the  dangers  and  discomforts  of  the 
new  method  of  locomotion  and  the  wild  speculation  to  which 
it  gave  rise.  Railway  directors  were  to  him  anathema.  In 

62 


The  Impudence  op  Steam 


his  first  volume  Punch  sturdily  declares  that  “the  best  thing 
to  do  for  poor  Earth  to  protect  her  Would  be  to  hang 
daily  a  railway  director,”  and  of  his  many  railway  cartoons 
perhaps  the  most  effective  is  that  which  represents  a  director 
sitting  on  the  front  buffers  of  an  engine  as  the  best  remedy 
for  collisions.  The  “Impudence  of  Steam”  is  satirized  in 
some  prophetic  verses,  one  couplet  of  which  is  still  often 
quoted  :  — 

“  Ease  her,  stop  her  !  ” 

“Any  gentleman  for  Joppa?  ” 

“ ’Mascus,  ’Mascus?  ”  “Tickets,  please,  sir.” 

“Tyre  or  Sidon?  ”  “Stop  her,  ease  her!  ” 

“  Jerusalem,  ’lem,  ’lem  !  ”  “Shur!  Shur  !  ” 

“Do  you  go  on  to  Egypt,  sir?  ” 

“Captain,  is  this  the  land  of  Pharaoh?  ” 

“Now  look  alive  there!  Who’s  for  Cairo?  ” 

“Back  her!”  “Stand  clear,  I  say,  old  file!  ” 

“What  gent  or  lady’s  for  the  Nile, 

“Or  Pyramids?”  “Thebes!  Thebes!  Sir!”  “Steady!” 
“Now,  where’s  that  party  for  Engedi?  ” 

Pilgrims  holy,  Red  Cross  Knights, 

Had  ye  e’er  the  least  idea, 

Even  in  your  wildest  flights, 

Of  a  steam  trip  to  Judea? 

What  next  marvel  Time  will  show 
It  is  difficult  to  say, 

“’Bus,”  perchance,  to  Jericho, 

“Only  sixpence  all  the  way.” 

Cabs  in  Solyma  may  fly ; 

’Tis  a  not  unlikely  tale  : 

And  from  Dan  the  tourist  hie 
Unto  Beersheba  by  “rail.” 


But  the  miseries  and  discomforts  of  railway  travelling  are 
dwelt  on  far  more  frequently  than  its  prospective  delights. 
The  first-class  alone  was  endurable,  and  that  was  grossly  over¬ 
charged  :  the  rest  had  to  put  up  with  overcrowding,  discomfort, 
draughts,  hard  seats,  smoke,  dust  and  dirt.  Third-class  pas- 

63 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


sengers  were  negligible  and  contemptible  folk;  neither  punctu¬ 
ality  nor  civility  was  to  be  expected.  * 

In  1845  the  railway  mania  becomes  acute— a  “universal 
epidemic.”  George  Hudson,  the  Railway  King,  looms  large 
in  the  public  eye;  and  Punch  expresses  his  dissatisfaction  with 
M.P.s  for  dabbling  in  speculation  which  they  have  themselves 
the  opportunity  of  unduly  favouring.  Burlesques  of  various 
railway  projects  —  centrifugal  and  atmospheric  —  abound. 
Punch  ridicules  the  idea  of  a  railway  in  the  Isle  of  Wight 
as  unnecessary  and  calculated  to  spoil  the  “Garden  of  Eng¬ 
land.”  The  menace  to  the  rural  and  pastoral  amenities  of  the 
countryside  moves  him  to  eloquent  protest.  The  sufferings  of 
M.P.s  before  Railway  Committees  are  set  forth  in  the  parody 
of  Tennyson’s  “Mariana  in  the  Moated  Grange”;  the  golden 
harvest  reaped  by  expert  engineering  witnesses  is  resentfully 
acknowledged;  “Jeames  ”  has  not  escaped  the  infection  and 
appears  frequently  as  speculator,  “stag,”  and  dupe.  The 
Battle  of  the  Gauges  had  been  joined,  and  Punch  asserts  that 
the  largest  entry  in  the  “railway  returns”  was  that  recording 
the  casualties.  The  Unicorn  in  the  Royal  Arms  is  explained 
as  the  “Stag  ”  of  railway  speculation,  and  a  design  of  a  railway 
lunatic  asylum  is  submitted  as  the  most  appropriate  terminus 
for  many  of  the  new  schemes.  The  protests  of  fox-hunters, 
noted  by  Punch,  recall  the  verses  of  the  Cheshire  poet  :  — 

Let  the  steam  pot 

Hiss  till  it’s  hot, 

But  give  me  the  speed  of  the  Tantivy  Trot. 

The  mania  was  not  confined  to  men  :  Punch  satirizes  the 
ladies  who  were  “stagging  it  ”  under  the  heading  “A  Doe  in 
the  City,”  and  suggests  a  Joint  Stock  Railway  Workhouse 
as  the  natural  and  fitting  end  of  all  these  operations.  This 
idea  is  further  developed  in  “Jaques  in  Capel  Court,”  a  parody 
which  begins  :  — 


All  the  world  are  stags  ! 

Yea,  all  the  men  and  women  merely  jobbers — 
64 


F — 1 


65 


THE  RAILWAY  JUGGERNAUT  OF  1845 


Mr.  Punch  s  Plistory  of  Modern  England 


and  after  enumerating  the  various  phases  of  the  mania, 
concludes  :  — 

Last  scene  of  all, 

That  ends  this  sad  but  common  history, 

Is  Union  pauperism  and  oakum-picking  : 

Sans  beer,  sans  beef,  sans  tea,  sans  everything. 

Railway  titles,  a  railway  peerage  and  Parliament  are  fore¬ 
shadowed,  with  King  Hudson,  “the  monarch  of  all  they 
‘  survey,’  ”  installed  in  his  palace  at  Hampton  Court.  The 
relations  of  John  Bull — on  whom  “the  sweet  simplicity  of  the 
three  per  cents.”  had  begun  to  pall — with  humbugging  pro¬ 
moters  is  hit  off  in  the  stanza  :  — 

Said  John,  “Your  plan  my  mind  contents, 

I’m  sick  and  tired  of  Three  per  Cents.  ; 

And  don’t  get  enough  by  my  paltry  rents  ” — 

So  he  got  hooked  in  by  the  railway  “gents.” 

In  his  anti-Puseyite  zeal  Punch  mendaciously  declares  that 
a  railway  from  Oxford  to  Rome  has  been  projected  with  the 
Pope’s  approval.  In  fact,  any  stick  was  good  enough  to  beat 
the  speculators  with.  “  Locksley  Hall  ”  is  parodied  as  “Capel 
Court,”  and  the  rush  to  deposit  plans  at  the  Board  of  Trade, 


Rules  for  Railways 


when  special  trains  were  chartered  by  rival  promoters,  is 
described  in  humorous  detail  in  a  Punch  ballad.  Padded 
suits  are  suggested  in  1846  as  a  protection  against  railway 
accidents,  but  the  best  summary — with  all  its  exaggera¬ 
tions — of  the  discomforts  of  railway  travelling  in  the  mid 
’forties  is  to  be  found  in  the  “Rules  and  Regulations  for 
Railways  ”  : — 

The  French  Government  has  published  a  royal  ordonnance,  fixing 
the  regulations  that  are  henceforward  to  be  observed  by  all  railway 
companies  in  working  their  lines.  As  it  is  a  pity  these  things  should 
be  better  managed  in  France,  we  publish  a  set  of  regulations  for 
English  railways.  Lord  John  Russell  is  welcome  to  them,  if  he  likes. 

Every  passenger  in  the  second  or  third  class  is  to  be  allowed  to 
carry  a  dark  lantern,  or  a  penny  candle,  or  a  safety  lamp,  into  the 
train  with  him,  as  the  directors  have  kept  the  public  in  the  dark 
quite  long  enough. 

No  train  is  to  travel  slower  than  an  omnibus,  let  the  excursion  be 
ever  so  cheap,  or  the  occasion  ever  so  joyful. 

Cattle  are  to  be  separated  from  the  passengers  as  much  as 
possible,  as  it  has  been  found,  from  experiments,  that  men  and  oxen 
do  not  mix  sociably  together. 

No  stoppage  at  a  railway  station  is  to  exceed  half  an  hour. 

No  railway  dividend  is  to  exceed  100  per  cent.,  and  no  bonus  to 
be  divided  oftener  than  once  a  month. 

No  fare  is  to  be  raised  more  than  at  the  rate  of  a  pound  a  week. 

No  third-class  carriage  is  to  contain  more  than  a  foot  deep  of 
water  in  wet  weather,  but,  to  prevent  accidents,  corks  and  swimming 
belts  should  always  be  kept  in  open  carriages. 

The  ladies’  carriages  are  to  be  waited  upon  by  female  policemen. 

Every  tunnel  must  be  illuminated  with  one  candle  at  least. 

Never  less  than  five  minutes  are  to  be  allowed  for  dinner  or 
refreshment.1 

One  director  must  always  travel  with  every  train,  only  he  is  to  be 
allowed  the  option  of  choosing  his  seat,  either  in  the  second  or  third 
class — whichever  of  the  two  he  prefers. 

Hospitals  are  to  be  built  at  every  terminus,  and  a  surgeon  to  be 
in  attendance  at  every  station. 

There  must  be  some  communication  between  every  carriage  and 
the  stoker,  or  the  guard,  either  by  a  bell,  or  a  speaking  tube,  or  a 
portable  electric  telegraph,  so  that  the  passengers  may  have  some 

1  Punch  was  especially  wroth  with  the  “  3  minutes  for  scalding  soup  ”  at 
Wolverton  and  Swindon. 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


means  of  giving  information  when  their  carriage  is  off  the  line,  or 
falling  over  an  embankment,  or  a  maniac  or  a  horse  has  broken  loose. 

There  is  sense  as  well  as  absurdity  in  this  list.  “Smoking 
saloons  ”  are  noted  as  a  novelty  on  the  Eastern  Counties  Rail¬ 
way  during  the  year  1846,  but  in  the  same  year  to  Punch 
belongs  the  credit  of  suggesting  refreshment  cars,  and 
indulging  in  a  pictorial  forecast  of  underground  railways. 


A  PROPHETIC  VIEW  OF  THE  SUBTERRANEAN  RAILWAYS 

The  proposal  that  drums  and  trombones  should  be  mounted 
on  the  engine  as  a  means  of  signalling  cannot  be  taken 
seriously.  Railway  libraries  on  the  L.  &  N.W.R.  are  noted 
as  a  novelty  in  1849.  But  by  that  year  the  temper  of  the 
speculating  public  had  changed,  and  Punch  is  a  faithful  index 
of  the  cold  fit  which  had  followed  the  disillusionment  of  the 
over-sanguine  investor.  The  lure  of  El  Dorado  now  beckoned 
from  the  New  World,  and  the  railway  madness  gave  way  to 
the  mining  insanity.  The  papers  were  full  of  complaints  from 
discontented  shareholders.  The  Battle  of  the  Gauges  continued, 
but  Hudson  is  already  spoken  of  in  Punch  as  a  discrowned 
sovereign,  threatened  with  disestablishment  at  Madame 
Tussaud’s.  For  a  while  Punch  was  inclined  to  extend  to  him 
a  certain  amount  of  sympathy  in  his  downfall,  and  in  “Two 
Pictures  ”  he  draws  a  contrast  between  mammon  worship  and 
the  onslaught  on  mammon’s  high  priest  by  his  greedy  and 

68 


King  Hudsons  Downfall 


discontented  worshippers.  But  the  mood  of  compassion  soon 
changes  to  resentment  in  the  bitter  adaptation  of  Cowper’s 
poem,  The  Loss  of  the  Royal  George: — - 

Toll  for  a  knave  ! 

A  knave  whose  day  is  o’er  ! 

All  sunk — with  those  who  gave 
Their  cash,  till  they’d  no  more  ! 

*  *  * 

The  Royal  George  is  gone, 

His  iron  rule  is  o’er — 

And  he  and  his  directors 

Shall  break  the  lines  no  more  ! 

In  the  same  vein  are  the  proposals  that  Hudson  should 
be  the  chief  “Guy  ”  on  November  5,  and  be  appointed  governor 
of  a  convict  settlement  on  the  Isle  of  Dogs.  Simultaneously 
improvements  are  noted  in  the  quickening  of  the  transit  to 
Paris,  the  increase  of  excursions,  and  the  beginning  of  voyages 
de  luxe. 

But  the  note  of  complaint  and  dissatisfaction  prevails. 
The  discomfort,  danger,  unpunctuality  and  discourtesy  endured 
by  railway  passengers  are  rubbed  in  with  wearisome  reiteration. 
In  1852  Puncii  ironically  comments  on  the  patience  of  the 
British  public,  “content  to  travel  in  railway  pens,  like  sheep 
to  the  slaughter,  injured,  deluded,  derided,  only  bleating  in 
return,”  and  concludes  his  summary  of  recent  protests  from 
correspondents  of  The  Times  with  the  remark:  — 

Railway  accidents,  railway  frauds,  railway  impertinence  are  the 
staple  of  our  daily  newspaper-reading.  Railway  chairmen  and  direc¬ 
tors  are  descending  to  the  knavery,  extortion,  impudence,  and 
brutality  from  which  cabmen  are  rising  in  the  scale  of  manners  and 
morals.  And,  as  aforesaid,  the  British  public  stands  all  this  with 
passive  mournfulness,  quiet  endurance,  meek,  inactive  expostulation. 

The  directors  of  the  L.  &  N.W.R.  are  severely  criticised 
for  overworking  their  engine  drivers,  a  propos  of  a  well- 
authenticated  case  of  a  man  who  had  been  on  duty  for  thirty 

69 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


hours  without  relief  or  opportunity  to  rest.  “If  dividends 
demand  economy,  and  economy  necessitates  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  one  man  to  do  the  work  of  six,  the  only  thing  to 
be  done  for  public  safety  is  to  get  a  man  with  an  iron 


RAILWAY  UNDERTAKING 

ToUTER  :  “Going  by  this  train.  Sir? 

Passenger:  “’M?  Eh?  Yes.” 

TOUTER:  “Allow  me,  then,  to  give  you  one  of  my  cards,  Sir.’ 


constitution,”  and  Punch  accordingly  suggests  that  the  directors 
should  provide  themselves  with  engine  drivers  entirely  com¬ 
posed  of  that  metal.  Complaints  of  dangerous  railways  con¬ 
tinue  to  the  end  of  the  period  under  review,  and  in  1856  Punch 
is  still  of  opinion  that  we  might  take  a  leaf  out  of  the  book  of  the 

70 


Bradshaw:  A  Mystery ” 


u 


Russians,  who  carry  surgeons  on  their  trains.  Undertakers 
he  had  already  suggested  as  a  part  of  the  normal  equipment 
of  expresses. 

A  witty  bishop  once  scandalized  his  hearers  by  bracketing 
Bradshaw  with  the  Bible  as  an  indispensable  book.  Brad¬ 
shaw’s  Railway  Time  Tables  were  first  issued  in  1839;  the 
monthly  guide  dates  from  December,  1841 ;  it  was  not,  how¬ 
ever,  until  1856  that  Punch  began  to  realize  the  elements  of 
comedy  underlying  that  austere  document,  and  utilized  them 
in  a  little  play  called  Bradshaw :  A  Mystery,  describing  the 
separation,  adventures  and  ultimate  reunion  of  two  harassed 
lovers.  Love  may  laugh  at  locksmiths,  but  Bradshaw  is  another 
matter.  Here  is  the  happy  ending  of  this  romantic  libel :  — 

Leonora.  Oh,  don’t  talk  of  Bradshaw  1 
Bradshaw  has  nearly  maddened  me. 

Orlando.  And  me. 

He  talks  of  trains  arriving  that  ne’er  start; 

Of  trains  that  seem  to  start,  and  ne’er  arrive; 

Of  junctions  where  no  union  is  effected  ; 

Of  coaches  meeting  trains  that  never  come ; 

Of  trains  to  catch  a  coach  that  never  goes  ; 

Of  trains  that  start  after  they  have  arrived ; 

Of  trains  arriving  long  before  they  leave. 

He  bids  us  “see”  some  page  that  can’t  be  found; 

Or  if  ’tis  found,  it  speaks  of  spots  remote 
From  those  we  seek  to  reach  !  By  Bradshaw’s  aid 
You’ve  tried  to'  get  to  London — I  attempted 
To  get  to  Liverpool — and  here  we  are, 

At  Chester — ’Tis  a  junction — I’m  content 
Our  union — at  this  junction — to  cement. 

And  let  us  hope,  nor  you  nor  I  again 

May  be  attacked  with  Bradshaw  on  the  brain. 

Leonora.  I’m  happy  now!  My  husband! 

Orlando.  Ah,  my  bride  ! 

Henceforth  take  me — not  Bradshaw — for  your  guide. 

The  curtain  falls. 


“Orlando’s  ”  speech  is  a  good  summary  of  the  humours  of 
Bradshaw  as  analysed  in  Punch’s  “Comic  Guide”  some  years 

later. 


71 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


From  steam  to  electricity  the  transition  is  obvious.  Punch 
notes  the  adoption  of  the  “Electro-Magnetic  Telegraph”  by 
the  Great  Western  Railway  in  the  summer  of  1844.  In  1845 
we  read  of  an  electric  gun  to  fire  1,000  balls  a  minute.  The 
laying  of  a  submarine  cable  from  Dover  to  Calais  is  discussed 
in  1846,  but  was  not  realized  till  five  years  afterwards,  when 
Punch  hailed  the  completion  of  the  scheme  as  a  new  link 
between  the  two  countries  and  celebrated  it  in  a  cartoon  and  a 
sonnet. 

Already  the  influence  of  electricity  on  international  relations 
had  been  foreshadowed,  and  in  the  same  year  in  which  Palmer¬ 
ston  repudiated  responsibility  for  the  welcome  of  Kossuth  in 
England  Punch  rudely  described  his  message  as  “electric 
lying.”  The  days  of  “wireless  diplomacy  ”  in  the  old  sense  of 
the  epithet  were  passing,  to  the  embarrassment  of  representa¬ 
tives  who  were  within  immediate  hail  of  the  central  Govern¬ 
ment.  Soon  we  begin  to  hear  complaints  of  the  new  service 
on  the  score  of  delays  and  excessive  charges,  and  when  an 
earthquake  shock  was  felt  “for  the  first  time  ”  in  Ireland  in 
the  winter  of  1852,  Punch  notes  that  a  writer  in  the  Limerick 
Chronicle  attributed  it  to  the  atmospheric  influence  of  the  electric 
telegraph  !  Electricity  as  an  illuminant  elicited  an  optimistic 
if  somewhat  previous  eulogy  in  1849;  and  cooking  by  electricity 
is  foreshadowed  in  1857.  The  laying  of  the  transatlantic  cable 
is  welcomed  long  before  it  was  an  accomplished  fact,  but 
Punch’s  compliments  had  a  sting  in  their  tail  when  he  wrote 
the  following  lines  :  — 


AMERICAN  JOURNALISM  IN  A  NEW  LINE 

It  is  much  to  be  hoped  that  the  telegraph  wire, 

About  to  be  laid  down,  will  not  form  a  lyre, 

On  whioh  to  strike  discord  ’twixt  the  old  world  and  new; 
Though  scarce  can  we  hope  all  its  messages  true, 

For  then  t’other  side  would  have  nothing  to  do. 


Punch’s  interest  in  aeronautics  dates  from  his  earliest  in¬ 
fancy,  though  his  mixture  of  prophecy  and  satire  is  rather  con- 

72 


Aviation  Forecasts 


AERIAL  STEAM  CARRIAGE 


fusing.  Designs  of  aerial  steamships  abound  in  his  columns; 
and  one  of  them  is  not  too  bad  an  anticipation  of  the  aeroplane. 

In  1845  there  was  actually  a  periodical  called  The  Balloon, 
though  Punch  is  jocular  at  the  expense  of  its  very  limited 
clientele.  Still,  though  the  number  of  aeronauts  was  few,  their 
enterprise  attracted  a  great  deal  of  attention,  and  Green,  who 
made  526  ascents  between  1821  and  1852,  including  his  famous 
trip  from  Vauxhall  to  Weilburg  in  Nassau,  is  frequently  men¬ 
tioned.  Punch,  to  his  credit,  inveighed  vehemently  against 
the  senseless  inhumanity  of  aeronautic  acrobats  who  made 
a  practice  of  taking  up  animals  with  them.  He  was  less 
fortunate  in  his  dogmatic  pronouncement  in  1851  that  the 
balloon  was  a  “perfectly  useless  invention,”  and  in  his  scorn¬ 
ful  dismissal,  four  years  later,  of  the  suggestion  that  it  might 
be  useful  in  warfare  : — 

Everybody,  including,  of  course,  all  the  nobodies,  would  seem  to 
have  some  peculiar  plan  for  finishing  off  the  war  in  a  successful 
and  expeditious  manner.  The  last  place  we  should  look  for  the 
means  of  carrying  on  hostilities  with  vigour  is  up  in  the  air;  but, 
nevertheless,  an  aeronaut  has  “  stepped  in  ”  upon  the  public  with  a 
suggestion  that  balloons  are  the  means  required  for  the  siege  of 
Sebastopol  and  the  smashing  of  Cronstadt.  If  this  theory  is  correct, 
Lord  Raglan  ought  at  once  to  be  superseded  by  the  “veteran  Green  ” 
or  the  “intrepid”  Mrs.  Graham. 


73 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


One  of  the  “intrepids,”  who  has  gained  a  high  position  by  his 
balloon,  has  published  a  dialogue  between  himself  and  a  general, 
who  is,  of  course,  represented  as  soon  beating  a  retreat  in  an 
argument  against  the  employment  of  balloons  in  battle.  The 
aeronaut  proposes  to  hover  in  his  balloon  over  the  enemy’s  position, 
and  take  observations  of  what  is  passing,  but  he  forgets  that  a 
passing  shot  might  happen  to  catch  his  eye  in  a  rather  disagreeable 
manner.  The  aeronaut  undertakes  not  only  to  observe,  but  to  make 
himself  the  subject  of  observation  by  a  series  of  signals,  through  the 
medium  of  which  he  proposes  to  point  out  the  movements  of  the 
enemy.  This  is  to  be  effected  by  an  apparatus  which,  as  it  would 
of  course  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  wind,  would  be  blown  about  in  all 
directions  possibly,  except  that  which  it  ought  to  take,  and  thus  the 
signals  would  be  converted  into  signal  failures.  The  aeronaut  also 
proposes  using  his  balloon  for  “destructive  purposes,”  by  taking  up 
some  shells,  which  should  be  “light  to  lift  but  terrible  to  fall,”  and 
so  arranged  as  to  avoid  the  fate  of  Captain  Warner’s  invention, 
“whose  balloon,”  we  are  told  by  the  aeronaut  himself,  “went  off  in 
an  opposite  direction  to  what  he  had  intended.” 

“And  by  what  means,”  answers  the  general,  “would  you  let  off 
your  missiles?  ” 

“Either  by  fuses,”  answers  the  aeronaut,  “a  liberating  trigger, 
or  an  electric  communication,  or  by  another  contrivance  which  you 
must  excuse  me,  general,  for  not  mentioning,  as  I  hold  it  a  secret.” 

This  “ secret  ”  will  probably  be  kept  to  all  eternity,  and,  at  all 
events,  until  it  is  revealed  we  must  be  excused  for  refusing  to  call  on 
Lord  Aberdeen  to  adopt  balloons  for  warfare,  or  to  blow  up  the 
Commander-in-Chief  literally  sky  high,  till  he  makes  the  air  the  basis 
of  military  operations. 


Some  enthusiasts  certainly  laid  themselves  open  to  ridicule. 
In  1849  a  certain  J.  Browne  advertised  a  “balloon  railway  to 
California  ”  as  both  “safe  and  cheap.”  Captain  Warner,  again, 
ruled  himself  out  of  court  by  his  refusal  to  explain  the  secret 
of  his  alleged  inventions — the  long-range  torpedo  and  the  bomb¬ 
dropping  balloon — to  the  committee  appointed  to  report  thereon 
until  he  had  been  assured  of  the  payment  of  ^200,000  for 
each.  Still,  he  cannot  be  denied  the  credit,  such  as  it  is,  of 
having  foreshadowed  two  of  the  deadliest  and  most  destructive 
engines  of  modern  warfare.  Punch  at  first  lent  Warner  a 
certain  measure  of  support,  until  careful  inquiry  had  shown 
him  to  be  both  untrustworthy  and  intractable. 

74 


Q 

Z 

< 


u  M 

S  z 

S  < 

Pi 

°  Q 
^  Z 
55  < 
p, 

<  C 
«  £ 
o  < 

W  J 
J 


w 

H 

w 

z 


P5  W 
S  H 

PQ  W 


C/3 

W 

55 

H 

te 

O 

H 

U 

W 

fe 

fe 

w 


« 

.J 


Q 

O 

o 

o 


75 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


THE  GOLD  CRAZE  IN  1849 

The  railway  “boom  ”  had  stimulated  that  first  infirmity  of 
ignoble  minds — the  desire  to  “get  rich  quick  ” — and  cupidity, 
balked  of  its  expectations,  turned  eagerly  towards  the  gold¬ 
fields  to  satisfy  its  longings.  In  1849  California  was  the  Mecca 
of  the  gold  craze,  and  there  is  hardly  a  number  of  Punch  in 
this  year  which  does  not  refer  to  the  stampede  from  Europe 
to  the  diggings — “the  wild-goose  chase  after  the  golden  calf,” 
as  he  called  it.  It  was  a  gold  fever  in  more  senses  than  one, 
since  the  diggers  suffered  terribly  from  disease,  which  led  to 
the  cynical  suggestion  that  convicts  should  be  sent  there,  as 
they  were  not  likely  to  return.  Cobden,  still  in  high  favour 
with  Punch  as  the  apostle  of  national  economy,  was  busy 
preaching  Peace,  Retrenchment  and  Reform,  but  his  efforts 
were  powerless  to  stem  the  tide  of  speculation. 

In  1850  we  find  a  reference  to  the  glut  of  bullion  at  the 
Bank,  a  state  of  affairs  long  strangely  unfamiliar.  In  1851 
the  opening  of  the  goldfields  in  Australia  diverted  the  stream 
of  speculative  emigration  from  California  to  the  antipodes,  and 
this  new  phase  of  the  auri  sacra  fames  does  not  escape  Punch’s 
notice,  though  no  mention  is  made  of  the  curious  fact  that 
amongst  those  who  were  lured  to  the  diggings  was  Lord  Robert 
Cecil,  afterwards  Marquess  of  Salisbury.  Alongside  of  the 
evidences  of  the  great  expansion  of  commerce  and  national 
prosperity  we  find  frequent  references  to  the  growth  of 

76 


■Novelties  and  Anticipations 


gambling.  In  1852  Punch’s  pages  abound  in  allusions,  in 
text  and  illustrations,  to  the  betting  mania — to  gulls  and  pigeons 
and  sharks.  “Profiteering  ”  was  rampant  in  the  Crimean  War, 
and  Punch  is  eloquent  in  his  denunciation  of  the  contractors  who 
supplied  shoddy  equipment  and  bad  guns.  And  the  aftermath 
of  the  war  included,  besides  other  familiar  sources  of  discon¬ 
tent,  “defalcations,  embezzlements  and  other  cases  of  gross 
and  enormous  dishonesty.”  It  was  a  time  of  speculation  and 
peculation,  of  bank  smashes  and  absconding  directors — those  of 
the  R.oyal  British  Bank  coming  in  for  special  execration.  The 
fraudulent  banker  is  singled  out  by  Punch  as  the  arch-rogue 
and  thief  who  excited  the  envy  of  the  burglar,  since  the  banker 
stole  more  and  escaped  unpunished.  The  brothers  Sadleir  are 
specially  selected  for  dishonourable  mention  in  1856,  but  John 
Sadleir,  M.P.  for  Carlow  and  an  ex-Lord  of  the  Treasury,  who 
was  the  original  of  Mr.  Merdle  in  Little  Dorrit,  and  was 
described  in  The  Times  after  his  death  as  a  “national  calamity,” 
only  escaped  punishment  by  suicide. 

As  we  survey  the  various  new  inventions,  novel  devices 
and  anticipations  mentioned  in  the  pages  of  Punch,  we  are 
tempted  to  exclaim,  in  the  hackneyed  phrase,  that  there  is 
nothing  new  under  the  sun.  A  “Glaciarium”  with  artificial 
ice  is  noted  in  the  autumn  of  1843.  “Euphonia,”  or  the  speak¬ 
ing  machine,  invented  and  exhibited  by  Professor  Faber  at 
the  Egyptian  Hall  in  1846,  was  an  automaton,  and  can  hardly 
be  regarded  as  a  lineal  ancestor  of  the  gramophone.  The 
“patent  mile-index  cab  ”  in  1847,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a 
genuine  harbinger  of  the  taxi,  but  the  time  was  not  ripe  for  its 
general  adoption.  Punch’s  account  of  “Talking  by  Telegraph,” 
in  the  autumn  of  1848,  is  no  more  than  a  piece  of  intelligent 
anticipation.  The  telephone  voice,  however,  is  happily  hit  off 
in  the  remark  that  “we  have  heard  of  a  singer’s  voice  being 
rather  wiry  at  times;  but  there  will  be  something  very  trying 
in  the  perpetual  twang  of  the  new  mode  of  small  talk  that  is 
recommended  to  us,”  a  comment  of  1848.  The  beneficent 
side  of  the  discovery  of  anesthetics  is  lightly  passed  over  in 
Punch’s  earlier  references  to  this  revolution  in  surgery  in  1847, 
which  suggest  its  application  to  politicians  or  its  use  by  hen- 

77 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


pecked  husbands.  Here  only  ether  is  mentioned,  but  the 
“blessings  of  chloroform  ”  are  discussed  a  few  months  later 
in  the  same  jocular  spirit.  Incubators,  the  sewing  machine 
and  phonetic  spelling  are  among  the  wonders  of  the  wonderful 
year  of  1848.  Pitman  and  the  “Fonetik  Nuz  ”  furnish  Punch 
with  food  for  mirth  in  1849;  the  claims  of  the  discoverer  of 
“Xyloidine,”  a  new  motive  power  to  take  the  place  of  steam, 
are  treated  with  frivolous  scepticism  more  justifiable  than  that 
shown  by  Punch  towards  ironclads  in  1850.  In  1851  the 
novelties  included  “Electro-biology,”  i.e.  hypnotism;  shoe¬ 
blacks;  electric  clocks;  false  legs,1  invented  by  Palmer,  an 
American;  and  the  supply  of  tea  to  the  Navy.  “Noiseless 
wheels”  in  1853  suggest  the  advent  of  the  age  of  rubber;  but 
Robert  W.  Thomson  had  taken  out  his  patent  for  india-rubber 
tyres  in  1845.  Steam  ploughs,  gas-stoves  for  cooking  and 
central  heating  for  houses  followed  in  rapid  succession  in  1853 
and  1854.  Punch’s  ironical  suggestions  in  the  latter  year  for 
the  comfort  and  convenience  of  Cockney  travellers  in  the 
ascent  of  Snowdon  are  only  one  of  many  instances  where  the 
mocking  fancy  of  one  generation  becomes  the  fact  of  its 
successor. 

The  “new  pillar  boxes”  must  be  added  to  the  features  of 
1854;  their  colour  harmonized  with  the  red  coats  then  worn 
by  the  postmen ;  while  the  scheme  to  propel  mail  bags  through 
tubes  by  atmospheric  pressure  was  put  forward  as  early  as 
1855.  Massage  appears  as  the  new  “movement  cure  ”  by 
kneading  and  pressing,  vide  Punch,  1856,  but  he,  however, 
was  not  solely  interested  in  beneficent  inventions.  Lord 
Dundonald’s  famous  “secret  war  plan,”  originally  proposed 
in  1811,  and  rejected  by  a  secret  Committee  presided  over  by 
the  Duke  of  York,  who  pronounced  it  “infallible,  irresistible, 
but  inhuman,”  Avas  revived  after  the  inventor’s  readmission  to 
the  British  Navy,  and  urged  on  the  Admiralty  and  GoA^ernment 
during  the  Crimean  War.  It  was  again  rejected  on  the  score 
of  its  inhumanity,  though  Punch  welcomed  the  plan,  without 

1  Henry  Heather  Bigg  (1826-81),  the  surgical  instrument  maker,  who  made 
the  substitutes  for  the  lost  limbs  of  soldiers  in  the  Crimean  War,  is  mentioned 
in  1856  (Vol.  xxx.,  p.  28). 


78 


Telegram  or  Telegrapheme  ? 


knowing  exactly  what  it  was,  and  besought  the  Government  to 
cast  away  scruples  and  use  anything  against  such  an  enemy 
as  Russia.  Whatever  may  have  been  “Dundonald’s  plan  ” 
was  never  divulged,  it  remained  a  nameless  mystery.  The 
new  nomenclature  evolved  by  the  triumphs  of  applied  science 
in  humaner  directions  led  to  a  good  deal  of  controversy,  notably 
over  the  introduction  of  the  word  “telegram  ”  as  a  substitute 
for  “telegraphic  despatch.”  The  shorter  form  was  first  officially 
used  in  1855  (see  the  Panmure  Papers)  by  Lord  Clarendon, 
but  scholars  and  men  of  letters  protested  vigorously  against 
this  Yankee  barbarism.  Shilleto,  the  famous  Cambridge 
scholar,  suggested  “telegrapheme.”  He  did  not  want  it,  but 
it  was  at  least  properly  constructed  on  Greek  analogies.  Oxford, 
as  Punch  notices  in  1857,  supported  the  modern  form,  and  here 
for  once,  at  any  rate,  abandoned  her  traditional  espousal  of 
lost  causes. 

In  general,  Punch ,  as  a  moderate  reformer,  deals  impartially 
with  the  contending  claims  of  science  and  the  classical  curricu¬ 
lum.  He  believed  in  the  liberalizing  influence  of  the  humanities, 
while  he  denounced  academic  arrogance,  pedantry  and  ex¬ 
clusiveness.  He  might  be  described  as  a  mitigated  modernist 
in  these  years,  in  which  he  advocated  the  popularization  of 
science  by  means  of  Institutes  and  similar  centres  of  enlighten¬ 
ment,  and  welcomed  new  inventions — while  reserving  to  himself 
the  right  to  burlesque  their  possibilities,  and  to  ridicule  the 
pretensions  of  pompous  professors  and  futile  philosophers.  He 
was  at  one  with  those  rationalists  who  waged  war  on  super¬ 
stition  and  credulity,  but  he  realized  better  than  they  did  how 
deeply  entrenched  the  enemy  was  in  high  places,  and  how 
mistaken  was  the  view  that  the  victory  was  already  won.  The 
friendly  lines  which  he  addressed  to  Faraday  in  1853  are  mere 
halting  doggerel,  but  they  are  worth  recalling,  if  only  for  their 
sound  doctrine,  which  is  as  much  needed  to-day  as  it  was  sixty- 
seven  years  ago  :  — 

Oh,  Mr.  Faraday,  simple  Mr.  Faraday  ! 

Did  you  of  enlightenment  consider  this  an  age? 

Bless  your  simplicity,  deep  in  electricity, 

But  in  social  matters,  unsophisticated  sage  ! 

79 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


Weak  superstition  dead;  knocked  safely  on  the  head, 

Long;  since  buried  deeper  than  the  bed  of  the  Red  Sea, 

Did  you  not  fondly  fancy?  Did  you  think  that  necromancy 
Practised  now  at  the  expense  of  any  fool  could  be? 

Oh,  Mr.  Faraday,  simple  Mr.  Faraday  ! 

Persons  not  uneducated — very  highly  dressed — 

Fine  folks  as  peer  and  peeress,  go  and  fee  a  Yankee  seeress, 
To  evoke  their  dead  relations’  Spirits  from  their  rest. 

Also  seek  cunning  men,  feigning  by  mesmeric  ken, 

Missing  property  to  trace  and  indicate  the  thief, 

Cure  ailments,  give  predictions  :  all  of  these  enormous  fictions 
Are,  among  our  higher  classes,  matters  of  belief. 

Oh,  Mr.  Faraday,  simple  Mr.  Faraday! 

Guided  by  the  steady  light  which  mighty  Bacon  lit, 

You  naturally  stare,  seeing  that  so  many  are 

Following  whither  fraudulent  Jack-with-the-lanterns  flit. 

Of  scientific  lore  though  you  have  an  ample  store, 

Gotten  by  experiments,  in  one  respect  you  lack; 

Society’s  weak  side,  whereupon  you  none  have  tried, 

Being  all  philosopher  and  nothing  of  a  quack. 


80 


EDUCATION 


EDUCATION  in  the  ’forties  was  the  Cinderella  of  the 
Legislature.  Parliament,  it  is  true,  spent  laborious  hours 
in  discussing  the  theory  of  education,  but  in  debating 
the  principle  overlooked  the  practice.  Money  was  doled  out 
in  homoeopathic  doses.  In  1841  the  sum  of  ,£10,000  was  voted 
for  the  education  of  the  people  in  the  same  session  in  which 
£70,000  was  voted  for  the  Royal  Stables  at  Windsor,  a  con¬ 
trast  which  Punch  had  not  forgotten  five  years  later.  The 
direct  connexion  between  ignorance  and  crime  was  constantly 
forced  on  the  attention  of  humane  magistrates.  When  the 
Lord  Mayor  of  London,  in  January,  1846,  declared  that  “society 
was  responsible  for  the  contamination  to  which  poor  children 
were  subjected,”  and  that  there  was  no  calamity,  to  his  way 
of  thinking,  “comparable  to  that  which  sprang  from  the  bring¬ 
ing  up  of  youth  in  habits  and  practices  of  idleness  and  vice,” 
Punch  found  himself  in  the  unfamiliar  position  of  being  called 
upon  to  eulogize  a  functionary  who  as  a  rule  never  gave  him 
a  chance.  “  Juvenile  delinquents,”  he  points  out,  were  “as  much 
reared  for  Newgate  as  many  of  the  beautiful  babies,  taking 
their  morning  airings  in  the  parks,  are  reared  for  hereditary 
legislators.”  In  another  graphically  brusque  passage  describ¬ 
ing  the  transportation  for  life  of  four  lads  aged  from  18  to  21, 
we  read  “they  were  brought  up  as  brutes,  and  society  reaps 
the  terrible  fruits  of  their  rearing.”  Hullah’s  music  classes 
for  the  people  at  Exeter  Hall  in  1842  were  excellent  in  their 
way,  but.  the  solace  of  song  was  a  doubtful  boon  in  the  Hungry 
’Forties,  and  though  Punch  supported  the  establishment  of 
schools  of  cookery  throughout  the  kingdom,  the  supply  of 
things  to  cook  was  more  urgently  needed.  The  years  rolled 
on,  the  Corn  Laws  were  repealed,  and  prosperity  revived, 
but  illiteracy  remained,  and  it  was  due  in  the  country 
districts,  in  Punch’s  view,  to  the  fact  that  “contending  zealots 
G-i  8r 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


cannot  agree  with  what  theological  mysteries  they  shall  leaven 
the  common  information  which  the  schoolmaster  is  to  impart 
to  the  country  bumpkin.” 

In  1850  the  following  dialogue  was  given  in  The  Times 
police  report  of  Wednesday,  January  9,  and  quoted  in  Punch: — 

George  Ruby,  a  boy  aged  14,  was  put  into  the  box  to  be  sworn, 
and  the  Testament  was  put  into  his  hand.  He  looked  quite 
astonished  upon  taking  hold  of  the  book. 


THE  EDUCATIONAL  QUESTION 
82 


A  bysmal  Ignorance 


Aid.  Humphrey.  Well,  do  you  know  what  you  are  about?  Do 
you  know  what  an  oath  is? 

Boy.  No. 

Aid.  H.  Do  you  know  what  a  Testament  is? 

Boy.  No. 

Aid.  H.  Can  you  read? 

Boy.  No. 

Aid.  H.  Do  you  ever  say  your  prayers? 

Boy.  No,  never. 

Aid.  H.  Do  you  know  what  prayers  are? 

Boy.  No. 

Aid.  H.  Do  you  know  what  God  is? 

Boy.  No. 

Aid,  H.  Do'  you  know  what  the  devil  is? 

Boy.  I’ve  heard  of  the  devil,  but  I  don’t  know  him. 

Aid.  H.  What  do  you  know,  my  poor  boy? 

Boy.  I  knows  how  to  sweep  the  crossing. 

Aid.  H.  And  that’s  all? 

Boy.  That’s  all.  I  sweeps  the  crossing. 

The  Alderman  said  he,  of  course,  could  not  take  the  evidence  of  a 
creature  who  knew  nothing  whatever  of  the  obligation  to  tell  the 
truth. 

It  was  to  cope  with  this  sort  of  destitution  that  the  Ragged 
Schools  movement  had  been  started  several  years  before.  From 
the  first  Punch  lent  it  his  hearty  support,  though  in  his  first 
notice,  in  1846,  he  was  unable  to  resist  the  opportunity  of 
combining  his  approval  with  a  dig  at  the  aristocracy  :  — 

WHAT  RAGGED  SCHOOLS  MAY  COME  TO 

It  is  with  peculiar  satisfaction  that  we  view  the  establishment  of 
Ragged  Schools  in  various  parts  of  the  Metropolis.  We  speak 
advisedly  when  we  describe  our  satisfaction  as  peculiar.  For  it  is 
not  merely  that  we  are  rejoiced  at  the  idea  of  a  number  of  youthful 
mendicants  being  prevented  from  becoming  thieves  and  pickpockets, 
taught  to  earn  an  honest  livelihood,  and  rescued  from  vice  and 
misery  through  the  instrumentality  of  these  seminaries.  No;  our 
views  are  much  higher  than  such  plebeian  considerations  as  these, 
and  they  also  extend  far  beyond  the  present  time.  We  have  an  eye 
to  the  benefit  of  our  posterity  and  to  that  of  the  superior  classes 
generally. 

When  we  consider  that  Eton  was  established  for  the  reception 
of  poor  and  indigent  scholars,  and  that  Winchester  and  most  of  our 

83 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


other  public  schools  were,  at  their  first  foundation,  charities,  we  may 
not  unreasonably  indulge  the  hope  that  the  Ragged  Schools, 
originally,  like  them,  destined  for  the  instruction  of  the  tag-rag- 
and-bobtail,  may  ultimately  become  gratuitous  institutions  for  the 
education  of  the  children  of  the  aristocracy. 


Yet  it  was  an  aristocrat  of  the  “old  nobility”  who  started 
and  devoted  his  best  energies  to  the  furtherance  of  the  Ragged 
Schools  movement,  as  all  the  world  knows.  His  name  is  not 
even  mentioned  here,  and  when  it  is  mentioned  in  these  years  is 
too  often  coupled  with  tasteless  gibes  at  Lord  Shaftesbury's 
proclivities  and  Sabbatarianism.  Punch  could  not  forgive 
Lord  Shaftesbury  for  his  association  with  Exeter  Llall  (which 
to  Punch  meant  fireside  philanthropy  and  Jellybyism)  and 
his  support  of  laws  which  enabled  magistrates  to  fine  boys 
fifteen  shillings  or  a  fortnight’s  wages  each  for  playing  cricket 
on  Sunday.  Sir  Robert  Peel  had  to  die  before  Punch  did 
him  justice.  Lord  Shaftesbury  was  more  fortunate,  for  thirty 
years  before  he  died  Punch  made  the  amende  in  “The 
Earl  King,  or  the  Earl  of  Shaftesbury  and  the  Juvenile 
Mendicant.” 

“The  greater  the  employment  of  the  primer,  the  less  the 
need  of  the  4  cat  ’  ”  is  an  aphorism  which  sums  up  the  creed  of 
the  humanitarian  reformers  of  the  ’forties  and  ’fifties.  The 
“ladder  of  learning  ”  was  not  yet  planted  in  the  modern  sense, 
and  efforts  to  ascend  from  the  lower  to  the  upper  rungs  were 
frowned  upon  by  those  in  authority.  At  a  meeting  of  the 
National  Society  for  Promoting  the  Education  of  the  Poor  in 
June,  1849,  a  clerical  speaker  ridiculed  the  questions,  set  in  an 
examination  paper  for  National  School  teachers,  which  pre¬ 
supposed  a  knowledge  of  the  works  of  Shakespeare,  Milton, 
Adam  Smith,  Johnson  and  Scott,  and  of  the  Life  of  Mrs.  Fry. 
Learning  was  at  a  discount ;  authors  of  note,  with  few  excep¬ 
tions — such  as  Thackeray  and  Macaulay — were  generally  im¬ 
pecunious,  and  sometimes  on  the  border-land  of  destitution. 
Douglas  Jerrold  had  a  life-long  struggle  to  keep  his  head 
above  water,  for  all  his  industry.  There  were  no  royalties  in 
those  days,  and  for  Black-Eyed  Susan,  which  brought  tens 

84 


The  Distressed  Author 


of  thousands  of  pounds  to  theatrical  lessees  and  popular 
actors,  he  received  from  first  to  last  the  sum  of  ^60.  Punch 
was  the  constant  champion  of  the  distressed  author  fallen  on 
evil  days,  such  as  Joseph  Haydn  of  the  Dictionary  of  Dates, 
who  was  granted  a  Civil  List  pension  of  ^25  a  year  just  three 
weeks  before  his  death  in  January,  1856,  or  old.  Joseph  Guy, 


Newsvendor  :  “  Now,  my  man,  what  is  it  ?  ” 

Boy  :  *'  1  vonts  a  nillustrated  newspaper  with  a  norrid  murder  and  a  likeness 
in  it.” 

“the  man  of  many  books,  the  ever-green  ‘Spelling  Book1 
among  the  number.”  One  of  the  finest  (but  posthumous) 
tributes  to  Sir  Robert  Peel  was  on  ihe  occasion  of  the  Literary 
Fund  dinner  in  1856,  when  a  sum  of  ,£100  was  sent  from  the 
proceeds  of  the  first  portion  of  the  Peel  Papers: — 

From  the  tomb  of  Sir  Robert  speaks  the  spirit  that,  when  in  the 
flesh  and  baited  by  the  dogs  of  party  [not  to  mention  the  bitter 

85 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modem  England 


satire  of  Punch  himself],  still  beneficently  thought  of  the  wants  of 
spasmodic  Haydn;  still,  by  sympathy  in  word  and  act,  smoothed  the 
dying  pillow  of  poor  Tom  Hood. 

The  respect  and  admiration  with  which  George  Stephenson 
and  Joseph  Paxton  were  invariably  treated  was  largely  due 
to  the  fact  that  they  were  self-taught  men.  And  when  Joseph 
Hume  died  in  1855,  Punch,  who  had  so  often  chaffed  him  for 
his  love  of  figures  and  returns,  while  applauding  his  attack 
on  “gold  lace  ”  and  extravagance,  paid  fitting  homage  to  the 
perseverance  which  enabled  him  to  fight  his  way  up  from 
poverty  and  obscurity,  to  his  rugged  honesty,  his  hard-won 
triumphs,  and  his  honourable  participation  in  all  victories  over 
wrong  in  Church  and  State.  An  alarming  ignorance,  however, 
was  not  monopolized  by  the  lower  orders.  In  his  scheme  for 
the  reform  of  the  House  of  Lords  Punch  suggests  that  peers 
should  only  be  admitted  to  the  Upper  House  after  an  ex¬ 
amination  in  the  three  R’s,  history,  geography  and  political 
economy.  Geography  even  in  our  own  enlightened  days  re¬ 
mains  a  stumbling-block  to  Ministers,  even  Prime  Ministers. 
Disraeli’s  ignorance  of  arithmetic  on  the  occasion  of  his  appoint¬ 
ment  as  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  in  the  Derby  Cabinet 
is  a  frequent  source  of  ribaldry  in  Punch,  who  suggested 
the  establishment  of  an  infants’  school  for  the  new  Cabinet. 
So  recently  as  the  eve  of  the  twentieth  century  a  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer  was  reported  to  have  been  so  ignorant  of 
decimals  that  he  asked  what  was  meant  by  those  “damned  dots.” 

Reverting  to  elementary  education,  we  can  find  no  better 
commentary  on  its  progress  in  the  mid  ’fifties  than  two  extracts 
from  Punch’s  “Essence  of  Parliament”  in  the  spring  of  1856  :  — 

Thursday,  March  6th.  In  the  Commons,  Lord  John  Russell 
moved  a  series  of  resolutions  on  the  subject  of  Education,  and  after¬ 
wards  withdrew  them.  What  they  were,  therefore,  does  not  seem 
to  be  a  matter  of  any  very  overwhelming'  interest,  especially  as  he 
threatens  them  again  on  the  10th  of  April.  His  plan,  however, 
comprised  a  sort  of  timid  notion  of  a  rate  not  to  be  altogether 
voluntary;  but  the  fact,  disclosed  by  the  census  of  1851,  that  of  four 
millions  of  our  children,  between  five  and  fifteen  years  of  age,  two 

86 


The  Education  Bill  of  1856 


millions  are  proved  to  be  on  no  school  list  at  all,  while  a  great  mass 
of  the  other  two  millions  are  receiving  the  most  miserable  tuition, 
did  not  excite  either  Lord  John,  or  our  Blessed  House  of  Repre¬ 
sentatives,  into'  an  indignant  declaration  that  the  children  should  be 
taught,  that  the  nation  should  pay  for  their  teaching,  and  that  the 
parents  who  hindered  or  neglected  -the  work  should  be  punished. 
On  the  contrary,  they  chattered  and  talked  commonplace,  and  com¬ 
plimented  one  another,  and  an  old  Dissenting  Attorney  called 
Hadfield 1  said  that  the  people  were  taught  as  well  as  any  other 
people,  which  he  proved  from  the  fact  that  they  wrote  and  posted 
a  great  many  letters ;  and  he  opposed  all  further  interference. 
Having  thus  got  rid  of  the  Education  of  the  Poor,  the  House  went 
on  to  the  Education  of  the  Rich,  and  had  a  discussion  on  the  Oxford 
Reforms,  but  it  also'  ended  in  nothing. 

Thursday,  April  ioth.  The  House  of  Commons  was  occupied 
during  this  night  and  the  next  with  discussing  Lord  John  Russell’s 
Education  resolutions.  They  were  opposed,  of  course,  by  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  Church,  of  Dissent,  and  of  the  Manchester  school; 
the  first  think  that  their  religion  only  should  be  taught  by  the  State; 
the  second  that  their  religion  only  should  be  taught,  but  not  by  the 
State;  and  the  third  that  no  religion  should  be  taught  at  all.  It 
is  needless  to  say  that  Government  has  no  practical  views  on  the 
subject,  but  like  all  half-hearted  people  contrived  to  get  the  worst 
in  the  fray. 

In  July,  1856,  at  the  end  of  the  session,  the  Education  Bill 
for  England  and  Scotland  figured  in  the  “Massacre  of  the 
Innocents,”  sixteen  in  all.  As  a  set-off  the  Cambridge 
University  Bill  introduced  some  useful  reforms,  though  it  failed 
to  secure  the  admission  of  Dissenters;  and  a  Minister  for  Educa¬ 
tion  was  created  under  the  title  of  Vice-President  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  of  the  Council  of  Education.  But  Punch,  in  these  years 
at  any  rate,  had  no  love  for  the  older  universities.  He  regarded 
them,  and  especially  Oxford,  as  the  strongholds  of  mediaevalism, 
obscurantism,  and  all  the  “isms  ”  against  which  he  was  always 
tilting  in  Church  and  State;  and  he  seldom  failed  to  satirize 
the  opposition  of  academic  authorities  to  inquiry  and  reform. 
The  romance  of  “the  home  of  lost  causes”  made  no  appeal 

1  Punch  is  unjust  to  George  Hadfield,  member  for  Sheffield  from  1852  to 
1874,  a  prominent  Congregationalist  and  advanced  Liberal  who  took  an  active 
part  in  forming  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  and  rendered  valuable  assistance 
in  the  House  in  promoting  legal  reform. 

87 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


\ 


AWFUL  EXAMPLE  OF  INFANT  PRECOCITY 

PRODIGY  :  “  Mamma!  Look  dere,  dere  Papa  !  ” 


to  his  practical  mind.  Yet  of  classical  scholarship  and  the 
classical  curriculum  he  was  a  loyal  supporter.  Classical  allu¬ 
sions,  quotations  and  parallels  abound  in  his  pages  :  he  even 
printed  translations  in  doggerel  Greek  by  Dr.  Kenealy.  But 
the  education  of  the  masses  was  his  prime  concern,  and  after 
the  fiasco  of  1856  Parliament  remained  inactive  for  nearly  six 
years — until  the  notable  measure,  establishing  the  principle  of 
“payment  by  results,”  was  introduced  by  Lowe  in  1862.  In  this 
context  it  may  be  noted  that  as  early  as  1848  Punch  avowed 
his  belief  in  the  value  of  making  lessons  interesting  to 
children  :  — 

The  reason  why  school  books  are  so  dreary  to  the  child  is  because 
they  are  full  of  subjects  he  has  no  sympathy  with.  Children’s  books 
should  be  written  for  children.  The  child  may  be  father  to  the  man, 
but  that  is  no  reason  why  he  should  be  treated  with  literature  which 
is  only  fit  for  a  father.  ...  If  battles  are  to  be  fought  before 
children  they  should  be  fought  with  tin  soldiers.  .  .  .  Study  should 

88 


A  Child's  Letter  to  Hans  Andersen 


be  made  into  a  good  romp,  learning  turned  into  a  game,  and 
children  then  could  run  into  the  schoolroom  with  the  same  eagerness 
they  rush  now  into  the  playground. 

Here  we  have  a  crude  anticipation  of  the  Montessori  system, 
around  which  so  much  controversy  rages  to-day.  Punch  has 
always  been  a  lover  of  children,  gentle  and  simple,  but  at  the 
same  time  a  faithful  critic  of  the  enfant  terrible  and  of  juvenile 
precocity.  One  of  the  most  delightful  letters  that  ever  appeared 
in  his  pages  was  the  genuine  epistle  from  a  little  girl  printed 
in  the  issue  of  January  io,  1857  :  — 


“  My  Dear  Mr.  Punch, 

“we  Hope  you  are  Quite  well  and  i  wish  you  many  Happy  returns 
of  Christmas  and  i  hope  you  will  Excuse  me  riting  to  You  but 
mamma  Says  you  allways  are  Fond  of  little  people  SO'  i  Hope  you 
will  Excuse  as  me  and  charley  read  in  the  illusterated  London 
[IVeTOs]  that  Mr.  Hans  Christian  anderson  is  Coming  to  spend  His 
Hollidays  in  Eng¬ 
land  And  We  shold 
like  to  see  Him 
becase  he  as  Made 
us  All  so  Happy 
with  is  Betiful 
storys  the  ugly 
duck  the  Top  and 
the  ball  the  snow 
Quen  the  Red 
shoes  the  Storks 
little  ida  the  Con¬ 
stant  t insoldier 
great  claws  and 
Little  Claws  the 
darning  Neddie  and 
All  the  rest  of 
Them  and  it  says 
in  the  illustat 
[several  attempts, 
a  smear,  and  the 
spelling  evaded ] 

Paper  the  children 
shold  Meet  him  in 
the  Crys  -  pallace 

and  we  shold  Like  HOMAGE  TO  HANS  CHRISTIAN  ANDERSEN 

89 


Mr .  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


to  Go  and  tell  him  how  much  We  Love  him  for  his  betiful  stores  do 
you  know  the  tinder  box  and  tommelise  and  Charley  liks  the  wild 
Swans  best  but  i  Hope  you  will  Excuse  bad  riting  and  i  Am 

“Yours  affectionate 

“Nelly. 

charley  says  i  Have  not  put  in  wat  We  ment  if  you  please  Will  you 
put  In  punch  wat  everybody  is  to  Do  to  let  Mr.  hans  Ansen  know 
how  Glad  we  are  He  is  Coming.” 

We  hope  that  Hans  Andersen — who,  by  the  way,  as  a 
writer  of  fairy  stories  is  regarded  with  disfavour  by  Madame 
Montessori — saw  this  letter.  On  the  relations  of  parents  and 
children  generally,  two  of  Punch’s  aphorisms  are  not  without 
their  bearing  on  present-day  conditions.  In  the  year  1844 
the  Comic  Blackstone  reads:  “Children  owe  their  parents 
support;  but  this  is  a  mutual  obligation,  for  they  must 
support  each  other,  though  we  sometimes  hear  them  de¬ 
claring  each  other  wholly  insupportable.”  And  the  other, 
under  the  heading  “The  World’s  Nursery,”  runs  :  “The  spoilt 
children  of  the  present  age  rarely  turn  out  the  great  men  of 
the  next.”  It  should  be  added,  as  some  readers  will  remember, 
that  in  neither  of  the  decades  under  review  were  the  children 
of  the  poor  in  any  danger  of  being  spoiled. 


(JO 


RELIGIOUS  CONTROVERSY 


PUNCH’S  efforts  on  behalf  of  Sunday  recreation,  already 
alluded  to,  exposed  him  to  a  great  deal  of  hostile  criti¬ 
cism.  In  1854  the  English  Journal  of  Education  declared 
that  Punch  was  not  suitable  reading  for  Sunday  :  it  was  “  worse 
than  useless  literature.”  But  Punch  gave  as  good  as  he  got. 
When  the  Record  attacked  the  Queen  for  having  a  band  at 
Windsor  on  Sunday,  and  alluded  to  Nero  fiddling  while  Rome 
burned,  Punch  unblushingly  called  the  editor  “a  brimstone¬ 
faced  Mawworm.”  1  The  question  of  the  opening  of  the 
British  Museum  and  National  Gallery  on  Sunday  came  up 
again  in  1855  on  the  motion  of  Sir  Joshua  Walmslev,  but  was 
defeated  by  235  to  48  votes,  to  Punch’s  great  disgust.  He 
advises  constituencies  to  watch  closely  the  conduct  of  the 
triumphant  Sabbatarians.  “If  one  of  the  235  saints  who 
opposed  the  resolution  of  Sir  Joshua  Walmsley  has  his  boots 
cleaned  on  Sunday,  or  takes  a  drive,  or  eats  a  warm  dinner, 
unless  by  medical  order,  he  is  a  humbug  and  a  hypocrite,  and 
unworthy  of  the  suffrages  of  free  and  independent  electors.” 
A  year  later  the  anti-Sabbatarians  resumed  their  attack,  and 
in  his  “Essence  of  Parliament,”  distilled  by  Shirley  Brooks, 
Punch  summarizes  the  debate  : — - 

The  debate  to-night  was  brief,  and  chiefly  left  to  men  of  small 
calibre.  The  principal  exceptions  were  Lord  Stanley,  who  manfully 
stood  out  as  an  Anti-Sabbatarian;  Mr.  Napier,  who  saw  “poison” 
in  seeing  pictures  on  Sunday ;  Mr.  Heywood,  who  denied  the  truth 
of  the  Jewish  history  of  the  Creation,  but  described  the  Sabbath  as 
a  divine  ordinance  to  be  kept  as  a  day  of  rejoicing;  and  Lord 
Palmerston,  who  thought  there  would  be  no  harm  in  opening  these 
exhibitions,  but  that  there  would  be  much  if  the  House  acted  in 
defiance  of  the  opinions  which  had  been  expressed  against  doing  so. 
This  eminently  House-of-Commons  logic  and  morality  was  too  suited 

1  Mawworm  was  an  eighteenth -century  forerunner  of  Chadband  in  Bicker- 
staffe’s  play  The  Hypocrite. 


91 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


to  the  audience  not  to  be  successful.  On  division,  376 — add  four 
who  were  “  shut  out  ”  and  say  380 — gentlemen  in  comfortable  cir¬ 
cumstances,  most  of  them  with  carriages  and  country  houses, 
decided,  against  48  opponents,  that  the  only  holiday  Mammon  has 
left  to  the  poor  man  shall  not  be  better  spent  than  in  a  squalid  house, 
a  dirty  drinking-yard,  or  a  debauching  public-house. 

This  Parliamentary  opportunism,  to  which  Palmerston 
adhered  in  the  matter  of  Sunday  bands  in  the  parks,  was  one 
of  the  qualities  which  Punch  liked  least  in  “the  judicious  bottle- 
holder,”  as  he  loved  to  call  Palmerston.  In  the  controversy 
which  raged  round  this  question  throughout  the  year  Punch 
gladly  recognized  the  enlightened  zeal  of  Sir  Benjamin  Hall, 
the  Member  for  Marylebone  and  Commissioner  of  Works.  For 
a  while  the  bands  played  in  the  parks  on  Sundays,  and  Punch 
celebrated  the  concession,  which  had  been  sanctioned  by  Palmer¬ 
ston,  in  an  “Ode  to  Sir  Benjamin  Hall.” 

But  the  boon  was  short-lived.  “The  Sunday  Band,  Hall’s 
grant,”  was  “abolished  by  the  influence  of  Cant,”  and  on 
May  19  Palmerston,  while  retaining  his  personal  opinion  as 
to  the  propriety  of  having  Sunday  music  in  the  parks,  stated 
that  such  “representations”  had  been  made  to  him  that  he 
had  felt  it  his  duty  to  give  way.  The  Sabbatarians  were 
jubilant,  as  may  be  gathered  from  Punch’s  reference  to  the 
Record  in  his  issue  of  August  16  :  — 

We  doubt  very  much  whether  we  can  any  longer  conscientiously 
call  the  Record  our  serious  contemporary.  That  doubt  is  suggested 
by  the  following  passag'e  occurring  in  one  of  its  leading  articles  : — 

“  We  are  taught  to  expect  the  blessing  of  God  on  the  conduct 
of  our  affairs  when  we  act  in  accordance  with  the  divine  will ;  and 
it  almost  seems  as  if  Lord  Palmerston  acquired  new  strength  from 
the  moment  when  he  agreed  to  put  down  the  Sunday  bands.  The 
attempt  to  make  Government  responsible  for  the  loss  of  Kars  was 
defeated  by  a  great  majority,  and  the  subsequent  attempt  to  censure 
Lord  Clarendon  on  account  of  the  American  dispute  was  defeated 
by  a  majority  still  more  overwhelming.” 

We  can  conceive  a  person  devoid  of  all  veracity  and  conscience, 
writing  in  a  great  hurry  to  a  set  of  imbecile  fanatics,  perpetrating 
such  stuff  and  nonsense  as  the  above,  but  we  cannot  well  conceive 
any  other  person  guilty  thereof. 


92 


Goldsmith  Bowdlerized 


Punch  could  not  see  harm  in  music  on  any  day,  and  he 
printed  a  charming  “petition  ”  from  the  song-birds  of  Kensing¬ 
ton  to  Sir  Benjamin  Hall,  expressing  their  apprehension  of 
an  order  forbidding  them  to  sing  on  Sundays.  But  then,  as 
now,  there  were  moralists  who  saw  not  good  but  evil  in  every¬ 
thing.  In  the  same  year  of  1856  the  Government  issued  an 


SUNDAY  MUSIC  AS  CANT  WOULD  HAVE  IT 


edition  of  Goldsmith’s  “  Deserted  Village  ”  for  the  use  of 
schools,  and  the  lines  :  — 

The  hawthorn  bush,  with  seats  beneath  the  shade, 

For  talking-  age  and  whisp’ring  lovers  made — 

were  amended  by  the  substitution  of  “youthful  converse  ” 
for  “whisp’ring  lovers.”  Assuming  the  character  and  style 
of  Dr.  Johnson,  Punch  castigates  this  “pseudo-purifier  of 
Goldsmith  ”  in  round  terms.  “Sir,  he  is  a  noisome  fellow, 

93 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


Sir,  he  is  a  male  prude  and  a  hypocrite.  Sir,  he  is  a 
dunce.” 

Punch’s  hostility  to  Exeter  Hall,  which  has  undergone 
structural  and  other  vicissitudes  even  more  remarkable  than 
those  of  the  Crystal  Palace,  was  originally  based  on  what  may 
be  called  its  foreign  policy,  which  he  regarded  as  indistinguish¬ 
able  from  the  worst  form  of  Jellybyism.  This  is  how  he 
described  Exeter  Elall  in  1842  :  — 

It  is  at  the  Hall  that  the  fireside  philanthropist,  the  good  and 
easy  man,  for  whom  life  has  been  one  long  lounge  on  a  velvet  sofa 
— it  is  there  that  he  displays  his  practical  benevolence,  talking  for 
hours  on  the  glory  of  shipping  white  pastors  to  Africa  to  baptise 
the  negro ;  or,  if  the  climate  will  not  have  it  so,  to  die  there.  And 
it  is  from  the  Hall  that  the  good  and  pious,  having  voted  a  supply 
of  religion  to  the  black,  depart  for  their  own  comfortable  homes, 
having,  to  their  exceeding  content,  indicated  their  Christianity  by 
paying  a  pound,  singing  a  hymn,  and — taking  care  of  themselves. 

In  1846,  in  “A  word  on  the  May  meetings”  (June  6),  he 
appeals  to  the  Exeter  Hall  people  to  drop  their  foreign  philan¬ 
thropy  and  educate  the  poor  at  home — multiply  ragged  schools 
by  ten  thousand,  and  aid  in  the  housing  movement,  social 
reform,  the  establishment  of  baths  and  wash-houses.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  many  of  the  Exeter  Hall  people,  with  Lord 
Shaftesbury  at  their  head,  took  an  active  part  in  these  move¬ 
ments,  but  Punch  could  not  forgive  them  for  their  rigid  in¬ 
sistence  on  Sunday  observance,  and  labelled  them  indiscrimin¬ 
ately  as  Pharisees,  Pecksniffs  and  Chadbands. 

His  hostile  criticisms  of  the  Church,  especially  the  bishops 
and  archbishops,  were  equally  uncomplimentary  but  better 
founded.  As  The  Times  wrote  in  1847  :  “The  chief  practical 
difficulty  of  the  Church  of  England  is  how  to  engage  and  secure 
the  affections  of  the  poor.”  Punch  re-echoed  the  sentiment 
(October  16,  1847),  adding  the  sarcastic  comment:  “Bishops, 
with  tens  of  thousands  a  year,  cry  f  Hear,  hear  !  ’  ”  But  he 
overlooked  the  fact  that  one  of  the  remedies  advocated  by 
“Young  England  ”  for  existing  evils  was  the  reorganization 
of  the  Church — to  make  it  the  friend,  comforter  and  protector 

94 


Clerical  Bugbears 


of  the  people.  “Young  England,”  however,  was  an  aristocratic 
movement,  and  its  leaders  were  almost  as  great  betes  noires  to 
Punch  as  Dr.  Sumner,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (com¬ 
monly  regarded  as  the  incarnation  of  Cant),  “Soapy  Sam  ” 
(Wilberforce),  “Henry  of  Exeter  ”  (Dr.  Phillpotts),  and  Blom- 
field,  the  Bishop  of  London. 


SERIOUS  Flunkey-  “I  should  require,  Madam,  forty  pounds  a  year,  two  suits 
of  clothes,  two  ’ats,  meat  and  hale  three  times  a  day,  and  piety  hindispensable.” 


The  wealth,  the  obscurantism,  and  the  Olympian  detach¬ 
ment  of  the  great  prince  bishops  were  a  constant  source  of 
exasperation  and  comment.  Punch  was  a  supporter  of  cheap 
divorce.  He  preferred  this  reform  to  the  Bill  for  flogging  wife- 
beaters,  and  securing  the  right  of  the  wife  to  keep  part  of 
her  earnings  when  separated  from  a  bad  husband.  The  Parlia¬ 
mentary  records  of  the  middle  ’fifties  are  full  of  debates  on 

95 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


the  subject,  but  one  extract  from  Punch’s  “Essence  of  Parlia¬ 
ment  ”  may  suffice  to  illustrate  his  nolo  episcopari  attitude  :  — 


Thursday,  June  26th.  The  Divorce  Bill  came  to  the  Lords  from 
their  Select  Committee,  and  Lord  Lyndhurst  most  ably  explained 
its  present  character.  What  is  proposed  is  this.  A  new  Tribunal 
for  deciding-  upon  matrimonial  causes.  That  a  divorced  woman 
who  acquires  property  shall  have  it  for  herself.  That  she  may  sue, 
in  actions,  as  a  single  woman.  That  a  wife  shall  be  placed  some¬ 
what  more  upon  a  footing  with  a  husband  as  regards  the  obtaining 
divorce.  That  in  all  cases  of  a  husband’s  infidelity  (accompanied 
with  cruelty),  in  certain  still  worse  cases,  and  in  those  of  bigamy, 
a  woman  shall  be  entitled  to-  ask  divorce.  Lord  Lansdowne  gave 
eloquent  support  to  the  Bill.  The  Bishop  of  Oxford  (Mr.  Punch 
does  not  misrepresent  him,  for  the  Church’s  stalwart  friend,  the 
Standard,  manifests  indignant  surprise  at  his  Lordship’s  speech) 
objected  to  the  proposed  increased  facility  of  divorce.  “The  lower 
classes  did  not  demand  the  privilegia  afforded  to  the  higher  and 
wealthier  classes.’’  The  Bishop  of  St.  David’s  thought  with  Dr. 
Wilberforce.  Lord  Campbell,  in  reply,  cited  Mr.  Justice  Maule’s 
scorching  irony,  when  a  poor  man,  whose  wife  had  robbed  him  and 
absconded,  had  sought  to'  provide  his  children  with  a  mother,  and 
had  committed  bigamy.  The  Bishop  of  Oxford  contrived  to  carry 
a  postponement  of  the  next  stage  of  the  Bill,  which  he  means  to 
“amend.”  Let  the  Lords  protect  the  Women  of  England  against  the 
Priests. 


It  may  be  added  that  Punch  was  also  a  supporter  of  marriage 
with  a  deceased  wife’s  sister,  and  that  here  again  he  found 
considerable  scope  for  the  display  of  his  anti-episcopal  animus. 
When  Lord  St.  Germans’  Bill  was  defeated  in  the  Lords  on 
April  25,  1856,  Punch  notes  that  the  result  was  chiefly  due 
to  “four  priests  ” — the  Bishops  of  Oxford,  Cashel,  St.  David’s 
and  Exeter — and  applauds  Lord  Albemarle,  one  of  the  heroes 
of  Waterloo,  for  his  “courageous  condemnation  of  clerical 
intolerance.”  Lord  Albemarle,  in  the  course  of  his  speech, 
made  bold  to  say  that  “the  opinions  generally  expressed  by 
ladies  on  this  subject  were  attributable  to  the  ignorance  of 
their  spiritual  advisers,  and  to  the  undue  reverence  for  the 
Common  Prayer-book.”  Punch’s  own  reasons  for  supporting- 

96 


Destitute  Clergy 


the  change  included  the  ironical  argument  that  a  widower  de¬ 
barred  from  relief,  when  he  remarries  takes  on  a  second  mother- 
in-law. 

But  Punch’s  chief  objection  to  the  bishops  was  that  they 
emphasized  in  the  most  glaring  way  the  contrasts  which  existed 
in  what  was  at  once  the  wealthiest  and  the  poorest  of  Churches. 
If  the  Church  was  out  of  touch  with  the  lay  poor,  she  was 
even  more  open  to  criticism  for  her  neglect  of  her  own  poor 


Affectionate  Husband  :  “  Come,  Polly— if  I  am  a  little  irritable,  it’s  over  in 
a  minute.” 


clergy.  The  scandal  of  the  ragged  curates  had  attracted 
Punch’s  attention  in  the  ’forties.  On  September  19,  1846,  he 
referred  to  the  recent  death,  “raving  mad,  in  penury  and  desti¬ 
tution,”  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Kaye,  of  St.  Pancras.  A  return, 
procured  by  the  energetic  inquisitiveness  of  Joseph  Hume  at 
the  close  of  1847,  revealed  the  fact  that  the  total  number  of 
assistant  curates  to  incumbents  resident  on  their  benefices 
amounted  in  1846  to  2,642,  and  the  number  licensed  to  2,094. 
Of  these  1,192  received  stipends  under  £ 100  a  year,  and 
as  many  as  173  less  than  ^50  a  year.  But  the  most  bitter 
comment  on  this  modern  clerical  instance  of  Dives  and 

97 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


Lazarus  is  to  be  found  in  an  article  in  1856  on  “Bishops 
and  Curates  ”  :  — 

A  curate — “an  Agueish  curate” — wishes  to  know  of  The  Times 
if  curates  in  general  “may  look  forward  for  some  provision  when 
age  and  disease  have  incapacitated  them  from  further  labours?  ” 
There  is  disaffection,  insolence,  in  the  very  question.  This  curate 
for  twenty  years  folded  the  sheep  of  two  curacies.  “They  were 
separated  by  a  hedgerow,”  and  the  pastor  was  “exposed  to  the 
pestilential  atmosphere  of  Essex  Marshes.”  And  the  curate  sums 
up  the  case  of  bishop  and  curate  as  below  :  — 

“To  a  bishop  who  has  had  his  labours  sweetened  by  all  that  life 
can  give  of  comfort,  luxury,  and  highest  dignity — a  palace  and 
^6,000  per  annum. 

“To  a  curate  who,  for  thirty  years,  shall  have  done  his  devoir 
before  God  and  man,  till  broken  with  miasmatic  fever,  or  voiceless 
from  excess  of  oral  exertion,  he  is  obliged  to  confess  his  inability 
to  be  any  longer  faithful  in  his  calling — the  workhouse.” 

And  is  it  not  well  that  it  should  be  so?  A  curate  on  £100  a 
year,  and  shaking  with  a  marsh  ague,  shaking,  and  praying,  and 
teaching  the  while,  is  still  a  lively  representative  of  the  ancient 
Christian,  is  still  a  living  extract  from  the  New  Testament.  Now 
a  bishop,  with  ^22,000  per  annum,  and,  if  shaking,  shaking  with 
the  fat  of  the  land,  is,  as  far  as  our  reading  goes,  not  to  be  found 
in  the  volume  to  which  we  have  reverently  alluded. 

It  should  be  explained  that  on  July  10  in  the  same  year  a 
Bill  had  been  introduced  in  the  Lords  enabling  the  Bishops 
of  London  and  Durham  to  resign,  and  making  provision  for 
them  :  — 

The  annual  income  of  Dr.  Blomfield  is  ^10,000  a  year,  and 
he  has  enjoyed  it  for  twenty-eight  years,  having  previously  had  four 
years  at  Chester  with  ^1,000  a  year;  total  receipt,  ^284,000.  And 
the  annual  income  of  Dr.  Maltby  is  ^24,000,  and  he  has  enjoyed 
it  for  twenty  years,  having  previously  had  five  years  at  Chichester 
with  ^4,000  a  year;  total  receipt,  ^500,000. 

The  “Prince  Bishops,”  with  their  princely  revenues,  have 
long  since  departed  :  nowadays  no  one  charges  bishops  with 
indolent  opulence.  The  scandal  of  the  poor  curates  and  under¬ 
paid  country  clergymen  still  remains,  but  the  disparity  is  not 

98 


Punch  and  “  No  Popery  ” 


so  great.  The  best  paid  prelates  find  it  hard  to  make  both 
ends  meet  or  to  make  provision  for  their  families.  Some  of 
them  even  publish  balance-sheets  of  their  receipts  and 
expenditure. 

In  the  domain  of  doctrine  and  religious  controversy  Punch’s 
record  is  somewhat  chequered.  He  was  equally  antipathetic  to 
High  Church  and  Low  Church.  We  have  seen  what  he  thought 
of  Exeter  Hall.  But  Pusey  and  his  followers  stirred  him  to 
even  greater  wrath.  He  called  the  Puseyites  “Brummagem 
Papists.”  He  saw  no  beauty  or  dignity  in  an  advanced  ritual, 
but  only  an  absurd  and  wicked  “playing  at  religion.”  So 
when  the  famous  Papal  Brief  was  published  in  the  autumn  of 
1850,  constituting  a  Roman  Catholic  hierarchy  in  England  and 
Wales  in  place  of  the  Vicars  Apostolic,  followed  up  by  the 
pastoral  from  the  newly  appointed  Cardinal  Wiseman  welcom¬ 
ing  the  restoration  of  England  to  the  communion  of  the  Roman 
Church,  Punch’s  indignation  knew  no  bounds;  he  became  the 
most  violent  champion  of  English  Protestantism.  In  earlier 
days  he  had  welcomed  the  Liberal  political  views  which 
Pius  IX  had  expressed  in  the  opening  stages  of  the  Risorgi- 
mento  movement  in  Italy,  and  had  printed  a  laudatory  set  of 
verses,  headed  “A  Health  to  the  Pope,”  in  the  issue  of 
February  20,  1847,  in  which  he  had  congratulated  Pio  Nono 
on  his  masculine  wisdom,  courage,  and  reforming  zeal.  His 
severest  censures  were  reserved  for  the  sectarian  zealots  at 
home.  “Everybody  knows  that  the  great  obstacle  to  popular 
education  is  the  agreement  of  sects,  on  the  one  hand,  that  it 
is  necessary  to  teach  orthodoxy,  together  with  secular  know¬ 
ledge,  and  their  inability,  on  the  other,  to  agree  what  doxy 
is  ortho-.” 

Early  in  1850,  when  the  friends  of  Church  Education  met 
at  Willis’s  Rooms  to  discuss  and  protest  against  the  Govern¬ 
ment’s  Education  Bill,  he  declared  himself  a  decided  opponent 
of  “National  Education  upon  strictly  Church  principles,”  which, 
as  interpreted  by  some  of  the  speakers,  were  “  indistinguish¬ 
able  from  those  of  the  heretic-burners  of  the  Inquisition.”  The 
cleavage  between  the  various  schools,  and  the  narrow  bigotry 
of  all,  moved  him  to  an  impassioned  appeal  in  which  the 

99 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


Gorham  case,  and  the  secession  of  Newman,  are  brought  in 
to  reinforce  his  plea  for  toleration  :  — 

O  Gentlemen  !  O  Servants  of  the  poor  dear  Church  of  England, 
while  you  are  boxing  and  brawling  within  the  sanctuary,  why  send 
forth  these  absurd  emissaries  to  curse  the  people  outside?  They 
don’t  mind  your  comminations,  they  are  only  jeering  at  your  battles. 

.  .  .  The  people  in  this  country  will  learn  to  read  and  write ;  they 
will  not  let  the  parsons  set  their  sums  and  point  out  their  lessons, 
or  meddle  in  all  their  business  of  life.  And  as  for  your  outcries 
about  infidelity  and  atheism,  they  will  laugh  at  you  (as  long  as 
they  keep  their  temper)  and  mind  you  no  more  than  Mumbo  Jumbo. 

Sound  doctrine  this,  but  it  was  all  forgotten  in  the  frenzy 
of  the  “No  Popery  ”  movement  a  few  months  later.  Punch, 
in  a  poem  on  “Consolation  amid  Controversy,”  gives  thanks 
that  the  days  of  persecution  are  past :  — 

We’ve  now  some  sharpish  mutual  slanging, 

But,  Heaven  be  thanked,  there  is  no  hanging  ! 

No  axe,  no-  chopping-block,  no  drawing, 

But  only  just  a  little  jawing. 

*  *  *  * 

There’s  no  Jack  Ketch  his  business  plying, 

People  beheading,  throttling,  frying. 

Punch,  and  he  says  it  without  boasting, 

Does  all  the  cutting  up  and  roasting. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  whole  of  Volume  xix.  is  dominated 
by  the  one  subject.  The  “cutting  up  and  roasting”  of  the 
Pope  and  Cardinal  Wiseman,  of  Passionists  and  Puseyites, 
is  conducted  on  every  other  page.  The  Pope’s  message  was 
“the  greatest  bull  ever  known.”  In  “Pontifical  News”  we 
have  a  series  of  imaginary  appointments,  including  a  Papal 
Lord  Chancellor,  miracles  and  conversions,  winding  up  with 
the  announcement  that  the  Palace  of  Bedlam  will  be  proposed 
as  the  residence  of  the  new  Primate  of  England.  Simultane¬ 
ously,  burlesque  rival  claims  are  put  forward  on  behalf  of  other 
creeds — Mohammedan,  Buddhist  and  Brahmin. 

On  November  4  Lord  John  Russell,  then  Prime  Minister, 

100 


THE  THIN  END  OF  THE  WEDGE 

Daring  Attempt  to  Break  Into  a  Church 


101 


Mr.  Punch s  I~I i story  of  Modern  England 


addressed  a  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Durham,  in  which,  without 
pronouncing  definitely  whether  the  law  had  been  transgressed, 
he  vigorously  condemned  the  Papal  claims  as  “inconsistent 
with  the  Queen’s  supremacy,  the  rights  of  our  bishops  and 
clergy,  and  with  the  spiritual  independence  of  the  nation  as 
asserted  even  in  Roman  Catholic  times.”  Lord  John  confessed, 
however,  that  he  was  less  alarmed  by  any  aggression  of  a 
foreign  sovereign  than  by  the  practices  of  “clergymen  of  our 
own  Church,  who  have  been  most  forward  in  leading  their 
flocks,  step  by  step,  to  the  verge  of  the  precipice.”  In  con¬ 
clusion  he  relied  with  confidence  on  the  people  of  England, 
feeling  sure  that  the  great  mass  of  a  nation  “which  looked  with 
contempr  on  the  mummeries  of  superstition  ”  would  be  faith¬ 
ful  to  “the  glorious  principles  and  the  immortal  martyrs  of  the 
Reformation.”  Punch  lost  no  time  in  improving  on  this  text, 
and  in  the  number  of  November  16  his  “No  Popery  ”  cam¬ 
paign  reached  a  climax  in  “A  Short  Way  with  the  Pope’s 
Puppets.”  Punch  had  no  desire,  he  declares,  to  bring  back 
the  days  of  the  hurdle,  the  halter,  the  axe  and  the  quartering- 
knife.  But  if  a  Roman  Catholic  Pope-appointed  Cardinal  called 
upon  the  City  of  Westminster  to  do  him,  in  the  name  of 
Rome,  all  spiritual  obedience,  he  would  “immediately  seize 
such  Cardinal,  try  him  for  high  treason,  and  on  conviction 
send  him,  in  convict  gray,  to  the  Antipodes.”  Yet  the  lines 
just  quoted  on  “Consolation  amid  Controversy”  appeared  a 
month  later,  while  the  anti-Papal  crusade  was  still  raging 
its  wray  through  Punch’s  columns  !  The  acrimony  displayed 
with  pen  and  pencil  was  deplorable.  In  extenuation  it  can 
only  be  pleaded  that  Punch  was  following  the  lead  of  the 
Premier,  and  not  misinterpreting  the  sentiments  of  a  very 
large  section  of  the  community  as  exhibited  in  addresses  to 
the  Crown,  county  meetings  and  other  demonstrations.  Cardinal 
Wiseman’s  conciliatory  statement,  in  which  he  maintained  that 
the  proposed  change  had  been  adopted  “for  the  more  regular 
administration  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  of  England, 
and  only  at  the  request  of  English  communicants,”  left  Punch 
cold  and  derisive.  He  suggests  that  as  a  counterblast  to  the 
Pope  the  Queen  should  be  prayed  to  create  Mazzini  President 

102 


Cardinal  Wiseman 


of  Rome.  In  the  “Bull  ”  fight  of  London,  in  “Fashions  Papal 
and  Puseyite,”  in  the  comparison  between  aggressive  Papists 
and  Cuffey,  the  transported  Chartist— very  much  to  the  advan¬ 
tage  of  the  latter — in  satiric  comments  on  Romanist  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  history,  in  repulsive  caricatures  of  slinking,  intrusive 
priests,  Punch  continued  to  heap  odium  and  ridicule  on  the 
Papal  claims.  He  was  more  than  a  little  wrathful  with  the 
Morning  Chronicle  for  asserting  that  in  the  “No  Popery  ” 
crusade  “the  tide  of  opinion  is  already  turned.”  But  the 
Morning  Chronicle  was  not  far  out,  and  it  is  noteworthy  that 
from  this  point  onwards  Punch’s  attacks  were  chiefly  directed 
against  Puseyites  and  Ritualists — such  as  Mr.  Bennett,  the 
vicar  of  St.  Barnabas,  Pimlico— and  Tractarians,  of  whom  he 
wrote  : — 

Rome,  Rome,  sweet  sweet  Rome, 

For  all  us  Tractarians,  there’s  no  place  like  Rome. 

Cardinal  Wiseman  did  not  “take  it  lying  down,”  but  re¬ 
taliated  vigorously  on  Punch  in  the  Dublin  Review,  denouncing 
his  opponent  as  once  facetious,  but  now  old,  drivelling,  and 
malignant,  “down  to  his  old  street  occupation  of  playing  the 
hangman,”  and  ironically  complimented  him  on  the  conces¬ 
sion,  in  his  letter  to  Lord  John  Russell,  of  commuting  the 
capital  punishment  of  offending  Roman  Catholic  bishops  to 
mere  transportation  for  life.  Punch  promptly  hit  back, 
but  he  did  not  get  the  better  of  the  exchange.  Wiseman 
was  a  skilful  controversialist;  he  was  also  an  extremely 
accomplished  and  learned  man,  a  considerable  Orientalist,  and 
much  in  request  as  a  lecturer  on  social,  artistic  and  literary 
topics.  Of  this  side  of  the  Cardinal  there  is  no  trace  in  Punch’s 
pages,  least  of  all  in  the  cartoons  and  portraits,  in  which  he  is 
represented  as  a  man  of  gross,  plebeian  and  repulsive  appear¬ 
ance.  If,  as  is  generally  believed,  Wiseman  was  the  original 
of  Browning’s  Bishop  Blougram,  the  poet  took  him  more 
seriously.  Browning’s  portrait  is  certainly  not  flattering,  but 
he  put  into  the  bishop’s  mouth  a  saying  which  probably  repre¬ 
sented  the  Cardinal’s  view  of  Punch  accurately  in  the  verse  : _ 

103 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


You,  for  example,  clever  to  a  fault, 

The  rough  and  ready  man,  who  write  apace, 

Read  somewhat  seldomer,  think  perhaps  even  less. 

Public  opinion  was  divided  and  unexpected  convergences 
were  revealed — illustrated,  to  take  only  one  instance,  by  Punch’s 
satirical  picture  of  John  Bright  embracing  Wiseman.  But  in 
the  heat  of  the  controversy  Punch  showed  refreshing  signs  of 
good  sense  and  good  feeling,  and  sternly  rebukes  the  precursors 
of  the  “  Kensitites,”  who  made  a  vulgar  demonstration,  in 
which  the  ringleader  masqueraded  as  a  mock  Pope  outside 
Wiseman’s  house.  “To  play  the  fool  about  the  street  on 
behalf  of  Protestantism  can  only  discredit  it.”  Still,  the  Pope 
and  Wiseman  remained  the  targets  of  Punch’s  obloquy  for 
several  years.  Oxford  he  regarded  as  “the  halfway  house  to 
Rome.”  Indeed,  one  is  tempted  to  sum  up  his  views  in  an 
adaptation  of  an  old  rhyme  :  — 

Roman  dictation  is  my  vexation ; 

Oxford  is  just  as  bad ; 

Papal  aggression  is  my  obsession, 

And  Pusey  drives  me  mad. 

In  “Roman  Candles  in  Hampshire”  we  find  him  attack¬ 
ing  Keble’s  ritual  at  Hursley.  This  was  in  February,  1852, 
and  when  the  Tablet  attributed  the  riots  and  loss  of  life  at 
Stockport  to  the  Government’s  proclamation  “against  proces¬ 
sions,  vestments,  and  the  free  exercise  of  the  Catholic  religion,” 
charged  the  Ministers  responsible  with  planning  murder,  and 
described  the  Queen’s  speech  as  “a  vile  and  hypocritical  docu¬ 
ment,”  Punch  replied  to  the  editor  that  “we,  the  mass  of 
Englishmen,  look  upon  your  viperine  expectorations  with  simple 
antipathy  and  disgust.”  A  bitter  cartoon  on  the  interference 
of  Irish  priests  at  elections  followed  up  this  exchange  of 
opinions;  not  more  bitter,  however,  than  the  repeated  on¬ 
slaughts  on  Canon  Moore,  the  Anglican  pluralist  registrar  of 
the  Prerogative  Court  of  Canterbury,  who  drew  ^13,000  a  year, 
according  to  Punch,  yet  doing  nothing  to  earn  it.  The  con¬ 
troversy  died  down  during  the  Crimean  War,  and  then,  four 

104 


A  More  Tolerant  Spirit 


THE  PET  PARSON 

years  elapsing,  the  Clapham  Evangelicals  are  rebuked  for  the 
“profane  vulgarity  and  sanctified  slang”  of  their  campaign 
against  the  Redemptionist  Fathers. 

For  the  rest  of  the  period  under  review  in  this  volume 
Punch  shows  a  slightly  more  tolerant  spirit  to  Papists.  Exeter 
Hall  and  the  bigots  who  strove  for  a  renewal  of  the  Protestant 
ascendancy  in  Ireland,  which  they  considered  had  been  im¬ 
perilled  by  the  Maynooth  Grant,  are  frequently  rebuked  for 
this  intolerance;  and  he  went  so  far  as  to  say,  d  fropos  of  the 
persistent  activities  of  the  United  Kingdom  Alliance,  that, 
“Of  all  Popery,  that  which  threatens  to  ‘  rob  a  poor  man 
of  his  beer  ’  is  the  most  objectionable  and  most  atrociously 
subversive  of  the  liberty  of  the  British  subject.”  The  sting 
of  the  remark  was  not  lessened  by  the  fact  that  the  honorary 

105 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


secretary  of  the  Alliance  in  question  was  a  Mr.  Samuel  Pope, 
and  Punch,  unable  to  resist  a  pun,  observes  that  there  is  “one 
important  difference  between  this  present  Papal  aggression  and 
that  of  this  time  six  years.  There  was  at  least  one  Wiseman 
engaged  in  the  former,  whereas  the  parties  to  the  latter  are 
all  of  them  fools.”  At  the  close  of  the  year  we  come  across 
the  first  mention  of  Spurgeon — by  no  means  complimentary. 
Punch,  who  suggests  him  as  a  fit  model  for  Madame  Tussaud, 
who  “makes  dolls  of  our  idols,”  regarded  the  Nonconformist 
preacher,  already  famous  at  the  age  of  twenty-three,  as  a  mere 
self-advertising  jocular  charlatan,  a  “sacred  creature  at  thou¬ 
sands  of  tea-tables,”  a  “dealer  in  brimstone  with  plenty  of 
treacle.”  Punch,  as  will  be  seen,  had  no  liking  for  the  “pets 
of  the  pulpit,”  whose  portraits  were  even  more  in  evidence 
at  the  print-sellers’  shops  than  those  of  favourite  actors.  The 
“histrionic  pulpit  ”  was  “worse  than  the  stage  at  its  worst,” 
and  he  admonishes  Spurgeon  to  dispense  with  these  aids  to 
popularity. 

To  resume  and  sum  up,  the  outlook  on  Church  and  State 
of  a  very  large  body  of  public  opinion,  from  that  of  the  Liberal 
Prime  Minister  to  the  man  in  the  street,  is  reflected  in  the 
pages  of  Punch.  Where  doctrinal  controversies  are  concerned 
we  find  a  complete  accordance  with  the  sentiments  of  “Hang 
Theology  ”  Rogers,  the  late  rector  of  Bishopsgate.  We  find 
a  complete  inability  to  appreciate  a  bishop  such  as  “Henry 
of  Exeter,”  who  was  prepared  to  spend — and  lose — scores  of 
thousands  of  pounds  in  litigation  to  establish  his  views  on 
baptismal  regeneration.  We  find  continuous  onslaughts  on 
Pluralism,  Sinecurism,  Mediaevalism,  Sectarianism,  and,  above 
all,  Sabbatarianism.  Punch  made  no  effort  to  disguise  his 
satisfaction  when  the  “Exeter  Hallites,”  as  a  result  of  their 
campaign  against  the  Maynooth  Grant,  were  landed  in  serious 
financial  troubles,  and  appealed  for  relief  to  discharge  their 
debts.  “How,”  he  asks,  “can  people  have  the  conscience  to 
ask  for  charity  of  others  who  have  so  little  of  it  themselves?  ” 

On  April  26  of  this  same  year  of  1845  Punch  castigated 
the  violence  of  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  Colonel  Sibthorp, 
Plumptre  and  other  opponents  of  the  Maynooth  Grant  Bill, 

106 


THE  POLITICAL  TOPSY 

“  I  'spects  nobody  can’t  do  nothin  with  me.  Vide  Uncle 
To  m’s  Cabin. 


io  7 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


notably  a  certain  Sir  Culling  Eardley  Smith,  who  declared 
that  “the  British  Lion  was  now  aroused  and  would  not  rest 
again  until  he  had  devoured  every  atom  of  Popery,”  and  that 
he  knew  of  “at  least  twelve  men  in  Parliament  who  would  die 
on  the  floor  of  the  House  sooner  than  that  the  Bill  should 
pass  into  law.”  If  Punch  showed  himself  almost  as  violent, 
if  not  as  ridiculous  as  this  Protestant  gladiator,  let  it  be  re¬ 
membered  that,  as  a  convinced  believer  in  the  British  Con¬ 
stitution  and  the  principles  of  the  Reformation,  he  regarded 
the  Papal  claims  as  an  attempt  to  set  up  an  imperium  in  imperio. 
Catholic  emancipation  he  firmly  supported,  but  this  was  another 
matter.  His  misgivings  were  unfounded,  but  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  his  honesty  or  that  of  those  who  felt  as  he  did.  It 
was  part  of  the  same  insularity,  often  prompted  by  a  sound 
instinct,  which  led  him  to  look  with  disfavour  on  foreigners 
and  foreign  ways  as  likely,  if  encouraged,  to  denationalize  the 
British  fibre.  To  this  we  may  also  attribute  his  early  distrust 
and  suspicion  of  Disraeli.  Nor  was  it  to  be  wondered  at,  in 
view  of  the  admissions  of  his  biographers  :  — 

The  fundamental  fact  about  Disraeli  was  that  he  was  a  Jew. 
He  accepted  Christianity,  but  he  accepted  it  as  the  highest  develop¬ 
ment  of  Judaism.  He  had  inherited  from  his  father  a  profound 
interest  in  English  history,  literature,  society  and  tradition,  which 
his  own  reading  and  experience  had  deepened.  But  he  seemed 
throughout  his  life  never  to  be  quite  of  the  nation  which  he  loved, 
served  and  governed ;  always  to  be  a  little  detached  when  in  the  act 
of  leading;  always  to  be  the  spectator,  almost  the  critic,  as  well  as 
the  principal  performer.  “No  Englishman,”  writes  Greenwood, 
“could  approach  Disraeli  without  some  immediate  consciousness 
that  he  was  in  the  presence  of  a  foreigner.”  1 

Now  Punch  was  intensely  English;  he  saw  no  need  for 
“Oriental  mystery  ”  in  politics,  and  considered  Disraeli’s  adop¬ 
tion  by  the  country  gentlemen  as  little  short  of  an  unholy 
alliance.  Dizzy’s  flamboyant  and  exotic  tastes  were  a  constant 
source  of  offence.  Nothing  better  illustrates  this  habit  of  mind, 
which  was  by  no  means  peculiar  to  Punch,  than  the  part  played 
by  the  paper  during  the  ’forties  and  ’fifties  in  the  long  and 

*  Life  of  Disraeli  (Monypenny  and  Buckle),  Vol.  vi.,  p.  635. 

108 


Punch  and  the  Jews 


chequered  movement  in  favour  of  removing  Jewish  disabilities. 
A  manly  desire  to  give  the  Jews  fair  play  was  tempered  by 
strong  prejudice.  As  we  have  seen,  Punch  frankly  admitted  the 
Jews’  great  virtue,  their  care  for  their  poor,  and  held  it  up 
as  an  example  to  the  “Exeter  Hallites,”  who  thought  that  charity 
must  begin  abroad.  At  the  same  time  he  held  the  Jews  largely 
responsible  for  the  worst  side  of  the  cheap  clothing  trade, 
witness  his  bitter  verses  on  “Moses  &  Co.”  in  1844. 

Punch’s  jests  at  the  expense  of  the  Jews  were  not  always 
so  excusable  as  in  the  case  of  Messrs.  Moses  and  “Sholo- 
mansh  ” ;  they  were  sometimes  purely  malicious,  as  when  a 
design  for  a  monument  to  Disraeli  at  Shrewsbury  took  the 
form  of  a  column  of  discarded  hats;  or,  again,  when  the 
announcement  that  the  University  of  Oxford  intended  to 
confer  on  him  the  honorary  degree  of  D.C.L.,  Punch  was 
prompted  to  remark  that  the  initials  stood  for  “Deuced  Clever 
Levite.”  The  strange  passage  in  Disraeli’s  “Life  of  Lord 
George  Bentinck,”  foreshadowing  the  role  of  world  revolu¬ 
tionaries  assigned  to  the  Jews  in  the  recent  much  discussed 
Jewish  Protocol,  did  not  escape  Punch’s  notice,  and  his  com¬ 
ment  is  characteristic  :  — 

Well !  The  Jews,  it  seems,  are  conscious  of  their  ill-treatment. 
They  join  Secret  Societies.  They  (for  the  evils  complained  of  by 
the  Barbarians  have  nothing  to  do  with  it ;  their  leaders  are 
nobodies)  topple  over  thrones  with  delight.  Bless  us,  what  a  pic¬ 
ture  !  And  what  does  it  suggest?  Now  we  know  why  Shadrach 
is  a  Sheriff’s  Officer!  " All  is  race ”  What  a  picture  of  cool 
malignity  is  this  !  Shadrach  taps  us  on  the  shoulder  with  a  fiendish 
luxury,  and  exults  in  dragging  off  the  Northern  Barbarian.  He 
luxuriates  in  locking  up  the  Frank  in  a  sponging-house ;  he  charges 
him  for  the  “Semitic  Element,”  and  sticks  it  on  to  the  chop  and 
sherry. 

Was  Punch  an  anti-Semite  ?  The  answer  is  to  be  found  in 
his  unwavering,  if  not  always  very  courteous  or  respectful, 
support  of  Baron  Rothschild  in  his  eleven  years’  struggle  to 
enter  the  House  of  Commons. 

Baron  Rothschild’s  anomalous  position  and  his  persistence 
in  demanding  relief  recalled  to  Punch  Martin  Luther’s  saying 

109 


Mi.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


of  the  Jews:  “They  sit  as  on  a  wheelbarrow,  without  a 
country,  a  people,  or  a  Government.”  This,  adds  Punch, 
was  said  350  years  ago,  and  the  Jew  is  on  the  wheelbarrow 
still. 

Rothschild,  elected  as  Whig  Member  for  the  City  of  London, 


A  GENTLEMAN  IN  DIFFICULTIES 

LORD  John  :  “  It’s  impossible  for  our  House  to  let 
you  have  that  little  matter  now.  But  you  can  have  a 
Bill  payable  next  Session,  if  you  like.” 


and  re-elected  in  1852,  1854,  and  twice  in  1857,  was  still  refused 
permission  to  take  part  in  the  privileges  of  the  House,  though 
allowed  to  sit  below  the  Bar,  and  remain  there  when  notice 
was  taken  of  strangers.  In  all,  nine  Bills  giving  the  Jews  relief 
had  been  passed  by  the  Commons  since  1830  and  rejected  by 

1 10 


Jewish  Disabilities 


the  Lords,  before  the  tenth,  and  last,  introduced  by  Lord  John 
Russell  in  1858,  led  to  a  compromise  under  which  each  House 
was  enabled  to  determine  the  form  in  which  the  oath  should 
be  taken  by  its  members.  On  July  26,  1858,  Baron  Roth¬ 
schild’s  “barrow  ”  was  removed,  and  he  was  permitted  to  swear 
the  oath  of  allegiance  in  the  Jewish  form  and  take  his  seat. 
To  Lord  John  Russell  belonged  the  chief  credit  for  carrying 
through  this  reform  and  abating  a  crying  scandal,  but  un¬ 
doubtedly  Punch  lent  him  valuable  free-lance  help  throughout. 


1 1 1 


FROM  PEACE  TO  WAR 


IN  the  ’forties  Punch,  as  we  have  already  noted,  stood  in 
with  “the  group  of  middle-class  men  of  enthusiasm  and 
sagacity  ”  whose  leaders  in  Parliament  were  Cobden  and 
Bright.  Their  views  were  from  the  first  strongly  anti¬ 
militaristic,  and  were  shared  up  to  a  certain  point  by  Punch. 
In  his  early  years  he  was,  with  some  reserves,  distinctly 
pacificist.  If  by  1854  he  was  a  whole-hearted  supporter  of  the 
Crimean  War,  it  was  not  due  to  any  change  of  personnel.  The 
gentle  Doyle  resigned  because  of  Punch’s  “No  Popery  ”  cam¬ 
paign.  Thackeray  severed  his  connexion  with  the  paper  be¬ 
cause  of  its  attacks  on  Palmerston,  the  Prince  Consort  and  Louis 
Napoleon.  But  the  men  who  dominated  the  policy  of  Punch 
in  his  ultra-humanitarian  days  remained  when  he  was  most 
bellicose.  Leech,  who  drew  the  “Home  of  the  Rick-burner,” 
was  responsible  for  “General  F (wrier  ”  and  the  Crimean  and 
Mutiny  cartoons.  Mark  Lemon  was  still  editor,  Douglas 
Jerrold  and  Gilbert  a  Beckett  were  his  right  hand  men  and  most 
voluminous  contributors.  It  was  a  conversion,  if  you  like, 
but  it  was  not  dictated  by  expediency,  nor  did  it  involve  a 
sacrifice  of  conviction  or  a  desertion  of  the  cause  of  the  under¬ 
dog.  It  was  partly  due  to  a  John  Bullish  resentment  of  anything 
savouring  of  foreign  aggression  or  intervention.  Along  with 
all  his  criticisms  of  Palmerston’s  Parliamentary  opportunism, 
Punch  gave  “the  judicious  bottle-holder  ”  credit  for  keeping 
us  out  of  wars  by  his  stiffness.  Punch  supported  Cobden  and 
Bright  in  the  battle  over  the  Corn  Laws,  but  distrusted  and 
thoroughly  disapproved  of  the  attitude  of  the  Manchester  School 
towards  the  reform  of  the  conditions  of  Labour — witness  his 
“Few  words  with  John  Bright  ”  over  the  Factory  Act  of  1847. 
Above  all,  he  could  not  stomach  the  over-candid  friend  who 
invariably  sided  against  his  country. 


1 12 


“GENERAL  FEVRIER”  TURNED  TRAITOR 


“  Russia  has  two  Generals  in  whom  she  can  confide — Generals 
Janvier  and  Fevrier.” — Speech  of  the  late  Emperor  of  Russia. 

I-1  1 13 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


With  this  much  by  way  of  preface  we  may  note  that  the 
anti-militaristic  tirades  of  these  early  years  are  mainly  directed 
against  the  needless  pomp  and  pageantry,  expense  and  extrava¬ 
gance  of  the  services.  Punch’s  campaign  against  duelling  is 
another  matter,  and  here  at  least  he  never  recanted  his  detesta¬ 
tion  of  “the  law  of  the  pistol.”  He  did  not  spare  even  the 
Duke  of  Wellington,  but  made  sarcastic  reference  to  his  meet¬ 
ing  with  Lord  Winchilsea  in  1843,  and  in  his  cartoon 
represented  the  principals  wearing  frock-coats  and  fool’s  caps. 
There  is  an  indignant  letter  to  Peel  the  following  March,  when 
that  statesman  refused  to  bring  in  a  Bill  against  duelling,  or  to 
reprimand  the  Irish  Attorney-General  for  challenging  in  open 
court  the  opposing  counsel  in  the  O’Connell  trial ;  and  when 
Peel  further  declined  to  grant  a  pension  to  the  widow  of  Colonel 
Fawcett,  a  distinguished  officer  who  lost  his  life  in  a  duel, 
this  refusal  prompted  a  famous  cartoon  a  fortnight  later, 
accompanied  by  this  vitriolic  comment :  — 

If  a  statue  be  ever  erected  to  the  living-  honour  or  the  memory 
of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  the  artist  will  wholly  fail  in  his  illustration  of 
the  true  greatness  of  the  statesman  unless  he  deck  the  bronze  with 
widow’s  cap  and  weepers.  In  the  long-  and  sinuous  career  of  the 
noble  baronet,  we  know  of  nothing  equal  to  his  denial  of  a  pension 
to  Mrs.  Fawcett,  and,  almost  in  the  same  week,  his  speech  in  favour 
of  the  “laws  of  honour  ”  as  they  exist.  In  one  hand  does  the  Prime 
Minister  hold  the  scales  of  justice,  and  in  the  other  a  duelling-pistol ! 

Punch’s  remedy  for  the  evasion  of  the  law  was  to  let 
the  principals  go  free,  but  to  hang  the  seconds  without 
hesitation. 

The  choice  of  the  Army  as  a  profession  is  discussed  in 
one  of  the  series  named  “The  Complete  Letter-writer,”  which 
appeared  in  1844.  Mr.  Benjamin  Allpeace,  guardian  to  young 
Arthur  Baytwig,  pronounces  against  it  as  a  gilded  fraud.  At 
best  soldiers  are  evils  of  the  earth,  and  the  pomp  and  pageantry 
of  war  mere  gimcrackery.  The  reality  is  “misery  and  anguish, 
blood  and  tears.”  This  was  the  year  in  which  the  Prince  de 
Joinville,  Louis  Philippe’s  third  son,  after  bombarding  Tangier 
and  occupying  Mogador,  made  himself  notorious  by  his  belli- 

1 14 


Punch  as  Pacificist 


cose  pamphleteering;  but  Punch  was  equally  severe  on  Lord 
Maidstone  for  his  patriotic  rhymes  in  the  Morning  Post,  and 
on  the  warlike  philanthropists  of  Exeter  Hall,  who  were  much 
exercised  by  the  Prince’s  ill-will  towards  Great  Britain.  Punch, 


THE  LAW  OF  THE  PISTOL. 


prohibited  in  France  not  for  the  first  or  last  time  for  his  comments 
on  French  politics,  ridiculed  the  Chauvinists  on  both  sides  with 
impartial  satire,  and  published  a  “Woman’s  Plea  for  Peace 
with  France  ”  on  the  ground  of  our  debt  to  that  country  in 
wine,  fashion,  the  ballet,  Jullien  (the  popular  musician  and  con¬ 
ductor  resident  in  London,  who  would  have  to  flee  in  case  of 

"5 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


war),  and  cosmetics.  Later  on,  in  the  same  year,  we  come  across 
“Entente  Cordiale  ”  cartoons,  in  which  Punch  assumes  the 
role  of  the  pacificator  of  Europe,  and  a  letter  to  French  editors 
protesting  against  the  notion  that  John  Bull  is  a  plotter.  Punch 
had  already  given  a  half  serious  support  to  Captain  Warner, 
the  eccentric  inventor,  who  professed  to  have  invented  a  long- 
range  invisible  shell  to  blow  up  ships  at  a  distance,  hailing  it 
as  a  means  of  ending  war,  and  developed  the  argument  further 
in  a  curious  article  on  the  “Science  of  Warfare,”  a  propos  of 
the  benevolent  object  of  some  inventors  at  Fulham.  Their  aim, 
it  seems,  was  to  put  an  end  to  war  by  making  it  so  truly 
terrific  that,  as  in  the  classic  example  of  the  Kilkenny  cats, 
it  would  terminate  its  own  existence  by  its  very  ferocity.  Thus 
do  we  find  in  the  mid  ’forties  a  foreshadowing  of  the  sinister 
uses  of  applied  science  and  a  justification  of  the  doctrine  of 
“frightfulness.”  In  1845,  in  connexion  with  the  intended 
reorganization  or  calling  out  of  the  Militia,  we  find  the  first 
of  many  satirical  references  to  the  famous  Brook  Green 
Volunteer — Brook  Green  being  “one  of  the  bolts  of  the  great 
Gate  of  London,”  as  Hammersmith  was  the  key  to  the  metro¬ 
polis  on  the  western  side.  Punch  at  this  time  was  a  bitter 
critic  of  the  methods  of  recruiting,  and  his  anti-militaristic 
zeal  reached  a  climax  in  a  protest  against  the  advertisements 
used  at  Birmingham  and  elsewhere,  in  which  he  calls  the  re¬ 
cruiting  sergeant  “the  clown  in  the  bloody  pantomime  of 
glory.”  He  had  already  fallen  foul  of  Sir  Charles  Napier  for 
his  defence  of  the  “cat”  in  1844.  The  issue  of  August  15, 
1846,  contains  a  personal  appeal  to  the  Queen  to  abolish 
flogging  in  the  Army.  Here  is  the  last  stanza  of  “Lines  on  the 
Lash  :  to  the  Oueen  ”  :  — 

Let  thy  queenly  voice  be  heard — 

Who  shall  dare  to  disobey? — 

It  but  costs  thy  Royal  word, 

And  the  lash  is  cast  away. 

With  thyself  it  rests  to  scour 

From  our  arms  the  loathsome  stain ; 

Then  of  mercy  show  thy  power, 

And  immortal  be  thy  reign  ! 

1 16 


The  Invasion  Scare 


This  may  not  be  great  poetry,  but  doggerel  verse  can  be 
simple  and  passionate.  The  appeal  was  not  granted  until  1881. 

In  1848  the  French  invasion  scare  was  in  full  swing,  but 
Punch  maintained  an  attitude  of  satirical  scepticism.  Impetus 
was  lent  to  the  alarm  by  the  letter  of  Lord  Ellesmere  to  The 


A  SILLY  TRICK 

JOHN  Bull:  “  Come,  come,  you  foolish  fellow;  you  don’t  suppose  I’m  to  be 
frightened  by  such  a  turnip  as  that !  ” 


Times,  and  by  the  letter  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington.  These 
were  welcomed  by  Punch  as  a  letting-off  of  alarmist  steam. 
“Folks  who  feared  an  invasion,  authorized  by  Lord  Ellesmere 
and  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  have  said  their  say,  have  con¬ 
tributed  their  quota  to  absurdity,  and,  satisfied  with  the  effect, 

n  7 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


may  now  rest  content  for  life.”  In  the  same  vein  the  sug¬ 
gestion  of  the  formation  of  a  National  Guard  who  should  train 
and  practise  shooting  on  Sundays  provokes  sarcastic  comment 
on  this  new  form  of  “Sunday  balls.”  The  enrolment  of  Special 
Constables,  as  a  precaution  against  the  violence  of  the  “physical 
force  ”  extremists  among  the  Chartists,  is  a  frequent  theme  of 
comment  generally  jocular  and  unsympathetic. 

England’s  immunity  from  the  general  upheaval  made  for 
optimism.  Cobden  in  1848  and  1849  was  still  in  favour  with 
Punch  as  the  “cleverest  Cob  ”  in  England  and  the  apostle 
of  “Peace,  Retrenchment,  and  Reform.”  His  Arbitration 
Motion  in  the  latter  year  met  with  Punch’s  cordial  approval  :  — 

PEACE  AND  WAR  IN  PARLIAMENT 

Mr.  Cobden  took  a  businesslike  view  of  the  question,  and  by  the 
practicability  of  his  notions  obtained  the  expressed  goodwill — could 
more  be  expected? — of  the  Prime  Minister  and  the  Foreign  Secre¬ 
tary.  For  ourselves,  we  entirely  accord  with  the  position  of  Mr. 
Cobden,  and  have  a  most  cheerful  faith  in  the  ultimate  prosperity 
of  his  doctrines,  for  they  are  mingling  themselves  with  the  best 
thoughts  of  the  people,  who  are  every  day  more  and  more  assured 
that  whatever  may  be  the  cause  of  war,  they  are  the  first  sacrificed 
for  it;  it  is  they  who  pay  the  cost.  Just  as  the  sheep  is  stripped 
of  his  skin  for  the  noisy  barbarous  drum,  to  beat  the  lie  of  glory, 
so  are  the  people  stripped  to  pay  for  the  music. 

The  romance  of  one  era  is  the  reality  of  the  next.  The  Arbitra¬ 
tion  Question  has  taken  root,  and  will  grow  and  spread.  They 
show  a  cedar  in  the  gardens  at  Paris — a  cedar  of  hugest  girth  and 
widest  shape — that,  some  century  ago,  was  brought  from  Lebanon 
in  the  cap  of  a  traveller.  The  olive  twig,  planted  by  Mr.  Cobden 
in  Westminster,  will  flourish  despite  the  blighting  wit  of  mess- 
rooms,  and  rise  and  spread  into  a  tree  that  shall  offer  shade  and 
security  to  all  nations. 

In  a  similar  vein  is  the  welcome  extended  to  the  Peace 
Congress  in  Paris  :  — 

THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  PEACE  IN  PARIS 

Anyway,  the  cause  of  peace  has  been  reverently  preached,  and 
reverently  listened  to,  in  the  warlike  city  of  Paris.  Within  a  walk 
of  the  tomb  of  the  great  peace-breaker — who  turned  kingdoms  into 

1 18 


The  Frankfort  Peace  Congress 


graves,  and  whose  miserable  purple  was  dyed  in  the  heart’s  blood 
of  human  freedom — even  there  peace  has  been  worshipped. 
Napoleon  in  his  violet  robe — beset  with  golden  bees — the  bees  that, 
as  in  the  lion  of  the  olden  day,  swarmed  in  carcases — Napoleon, 
with  his  Pope-blessed  crown  clipping  his  homicidal  brain,  is,  after 
all,  a  portentous,  glistering  evil — contrasted  with  our  Quaker  friend 
[Joseph  Sturge],  who,  risen  in  the  Hall  of  St.  Cecilia,  condemns 
aggressive  war  as  an  abomination,  a  nuisance  that  it  behoves  man, 
in  this  season  of  his  soul’s  progress,  with  all  his  heart  and  all  his 
mind,  to  denounce  and  renounce  as  un-Ohristian,  vile,  and  bruti- 
fying.  The  drab  against  the  purple;  and,  in  our  small  thoughts, 
the  drab,  so  preaching,  carries  it. 

So,  again,  Punch  breaks  a  lance  in  defence  of  the  Peace 
Congress  in  the  year  1850  at  Frankfort.  What  if  it  were 
inspired  by  visionary  aims  ?  All  great  reformers,  idealists 
and  benefactors — Harvey,  Jenner,  Stephenson — had  been  ridi¬ 
culed  by  unthinking  and  unimaginative  critics:  — 

TO  THE  LAUGHERS 

The  Peace  Congress  is  a  capital  joke.  It’s  so  obvious  a  subject 
for  fun  that  we  haven’t  thought  it  worth  while  to  waste  a  laugh 
on  it.  All  manner  of  pens  have  been  poking  the  public  in  the  ribs 
about  it — paper  pellets  of  all  colours  and  weights  have  been  slung  at  it 
— arrows  from  all  quivers  have  been  emptied  on  its  vulnerable  sides. 

“Preach  Peace  to  the  World  !  ”  The  poor  noodles!  “Inculcate 
the  supremacy  of  right  over  might  !  ”  Ineffable  milk-and-water 
spoonies !  “  Hold  out  to  nations  brotherhood  for  warfare,  the 

award  of  justice  instead  of  the  bayonet  !  ”  The  white-faced,  lily- 
livered  prigs  ! 

“Why,  it’s  the  merest  Utopianism,”  says  the  Economist. 

“It’s  neither  more  nor  less  than  Christianity,”  sneers  the  Statist; 
“Trade  is  the  peace-maker,”  says  the  Doctor  of  the  Manchester 
School;  “Diplomacy  keeps  the  world  quiet,”  jocularly  declares  the 
Red-tapist ;  “  Peace  indeed,  the  designing  democrat !  ”  growls  the 
Absolutist;  “Peace,  with  a  bloated  Aristocracy  still  rampant!” 
snarls  the  Red  Republican.  And  they  all  drown  in  a  chorus  of 
contemptuous  laughter  the  pleading  voices  of  the  poor  Peace  Con- 
gressists  in  the  Church  of  St.  Paul. 

But  there  are  some  voices  which  refuse  to  join  in  this  chorus. 
And  there  are  some,  too,  of  the  wise  and  the  great  who  can  discern 
in  this  gathering  of  friends  of  peace,  this  little  Babel  of  various 
tongues,  this  tiny  congress  of  many  races,  a  thing  in  no  way  to  be 

119 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


ridiculed  any  more  than  the  acorn  is  to  be  ridiculed  when  Science 
declares  that  its  heart  contains  the  Oak. 

The  pacificist  note  had  already  been  sounded  when  the  Duke 
of  Wellington  publicly  declared  in  1849  that  it  was  time 
ignorance  should  cease  in  the  Army,  on  which  Punch  remarked 
“When  the  aforesaid  ignorance  ceases,  how  long  will  the 
British  Army  last?”  And  in  the  same  year,  while  condemning 
the  Government  for  refusing  to  pay  for  enlarging  the  National 
Gallery,  he  protested  against  the  Naval  Estimates  as  past  a 
joke  “when  ^158,000  might  be  spent  on  a  frigate  including  her 
total  loss  at  sea.”  On  naval  matters  Punch  foretold  many 
things,  but  he  did  not  foresee  the  advent  or  predict  the  cost  of 
the  super-Dreadnought.  Indeed,  if  the  truth  be  told,  he  was 
extremely  sceptical  as  to  the  efficiency  of  ironclads  at  all.  They 
were  “ferreous  freaks”  :  vessels  “made  in  foundries  were  sure 
to  founder.”  He  is  on  safer  ground  altogether  when  he 
assails  with  great  spirit  and  caustic  irony  the  refusal  of  the 
Admiralty  in  1850  to  admit  naval  surgeons  to  the  wardroom, 
and  proclaimed  in  vehement  accents  that  he  was  “made 
positively  ill  ”  by  the  arguments  of  those  who  opposed  Captain 
Boldero’s  proposals.  The  status  and  dignity  of  Army  and 
Navy  doctors  and  surgeons  were  near  to  his  heart,  and  he  scorn¬ 
fully  resented  the  view  that  while  “glory  may  be  written  on 
a  drum  head,  it  is  not  to  be  put  down  on  lint.” 

The  turning  point  at  which  Punch’s  pacificist  zeal  began  to 
cool  was  reached  in  1849,  and  the  change  grew  out  of  a  generous 
sympathy  with  Italy  and  Hungary.  The  repeated  warnings 
addressed  by  Palmerston  to  Austria,  the  independent  action 
which  so  often  embarrassed  his  colleagues  and  annoyed  his 
Sovereign,  and  his  support  of  Turkey  in  refusing  to  surrender 
Kossuth  (though  he  subsequently  repudiated  any  responsibility 
for  his  welcome  in  England),  were  warmly  praised  by  Punch, 
who  welcomed  his  declaration  as  a  “bugle  note.”  In  1850 
Punch  waxed  humorous  at  the  expense  of  Sir  Francis  Head, 
who  wrote  a  book  in  which  he  demonstrated  that  150,000 
Frenchmen  could  invade  London  with  the  greatest  ease. 
The  coup  d’etat  of  1851,  and  suspicion  of  the  aims  of  Louis 

120 


THERE’S  ALWAYS  SOMETHING 


“  I’m  very  sorry,  Palmerston,  that  you  cannot  agree  with  your 
fellow-servants;  but  as  I  don’t  feel  inclined ‘to  part  with  John, 
you  must  go,  of  course.” 


121 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


Napoleon,  whom  Punch  described  as  a  “perjured  homicide,” 
converted  him  into  a  supporter  of  rifle  clubs  as  “patriotic  and 
needful.”  The  Russell  Cabinet  fell  over  the  Local  Militia  Bill, 
Palmerston  carrying  an  amendment  which  omitted  the  word 
“local  ”  from  the  title  of  the  Bill,  so  as  to  make  the  Militia 
generally  available  as  an  Army  Reserve.  Palmerston  had 
already  resigned,  or  been  dismissed,  for  exceeding  his  functions 
as  Foreign  Minister  by  expressing  his  private  approval  of  the 
policy  of  Louis  Napoleon,  but  in  spite  of  this  Punch  regretted 
the  loss  of  the  strong  man  of  the  Cabinet.  The  year  1852 
opened  in  gloom  and  misgiving,  faithfully  reflected  in  the  lines 
on  “Retrospect  and  Prospect:  or  1851  and  1852,”  with  their 
picture  of  the  anxious  vigil  of  England. 

“Defence  not  defiance”  is  the  keynote  of  the  appeal, 
“Speak,  Mr.  Cobden  !  ”  but  it  foreshadowed  a  cleavage  which 
was  soon  to  develop  into  bitter  antagonism  :  — 

Armaments  useless  our  money  to  spend  on, 

Certainly  we  should  be  acting  like  geese; 

But  have  we  any  sure  ground  to  depend  on, 

In  trusting  our  neighbours  will  leave  us  at  peace? 

Speak,  Mr.  Cobden  ! 

The  services  of  Volunteer  Rifle  Corps  were  accepted  by  the 
Government,  and  Punch  (who  was  extremely  satirical  at  the 
expense  of  the  Oxford  University  authorities  for  discouraging 
the  O.U.R.C.)  can  fairly  claim  to  have  been  the  inventor  of 
camouflage  on  the  strength  of  the  following  suggestions  as  to 
equipment.  Under  the  heading  of  “Safety  Uniforms  ”  the 
reader  finds  :  — 

In  accordance  with  the  practical  suggestions  of  several  dis¬ 
tinguished  military  officers,  and  others,  care  has  been  taken  to 
provide  a  great  variety  of  patterns  and  uniforms,  the  colours  of 
which,  assimilating  to  every  conceivable  shade  of  surrounding 
objects,  cause  the  wearer  to  present  as  indistinct  a  mark  as  possible 
to  the  enemy’s  aim.  Besides  the  neutral  greys  corresponding  to  the 
mixed  colours  of  the  heath,  and  the  brown  mixture  identical  with 
the  colour  of  the  mud,  samples  have  been  manufactured  of  slate- 
oolour  and  brick-dust  red,  calculated  for  house-top  service  amongst 


122 


Death  of  “  The  Duke  ” 


the  chimney  pots,  of  bright  green  with  mother-of-pearl  and  gilt 
buttons  intermingled,  adapted  for  field  fighting  in  case  of  an  invasion 
occurring  at  the  time  of  the  daisies  and  buttercups,  of  straw  colour 
for  a  harvest  or  stubble  brigade,  and  of  snowy  white,  which  would 
be  a  suitable  tint  if  we  were  to-  be  attacked  simultaneously  by  the 
foe  and  the  frost.  A  splendid  pattern  has  also  been  made  of  cloth 
of  gold  and  silver,  the  dazzling  effect  of  which  under  a  glare  of 
sunshine,  in  the  midst  of  a  Turneresque  landscape,  would  be  such 
as  utterly  to  bewilder  the  aim  of  the  most  expert  marksman.  All 
these  wonderful  uniforms,  warranted  incapable  of  being  hit,  besides 
a  regulation  rifle  guaranteed  never  to  miss,  to  be  had  at  Messrs. 
Punch  and  Co. ’s,  Army  Clothiers,  85,  Fleet  Street,  where  every 
species  of  Gentlemanlike  Dressing  is  supplied  to  those  requiring  a 
superior  article  and  good  cut. 

The  challenge  to  Cobden  to  declare  himself  soon  gave  place 
to  direct  attacks  on  the  pacificists,  and  the  death  of  the  Duke  of 
Wellington  gave  Punch  a  fresh  text  on  which  to  expound  the 
doctrine  of  preparation. 

RENDERING  UP  THE  SWORD 

Our  Arthur  sleeps — our  Arthur  is  not  dead. 

Excalibar  shall  yet  leap  from  the  sheath, 

Should  e’er  invading  foot  this  England  tread — 
Upstirring,  then,  his  marble  tomb  beneath. 

Our  Wellington’s  undying  fire  shall  burn 
Through  all  our  veins — until  the  foeman  say, 

“  Behold,  their  Arthur  doth  to  life  return  !  ” 

And  awestruck  from  the  onset  shrink  away. 

Moreover,  Punch  defends  the  martial  pageantry  at  the 
Duke’s  funeral  at  this  juncture  on  the  ground  that  it  served 
to  show  to  “Continental  despots  and  bigots  with  what  enthu¬ 
siasm  we  yet  honour  military  heroism;  that  if  we  have  abjured 
the  life  of  strife,  we  have  not  renounced  the  spirit  of  valour.” 

Throughout  1852  and  1853  there  is  a  steady  crescendo  of 
hostility  in  the  references  to  Cobden,  Bright  and  the  Quaker 
pacificists.  In  this,  both  pen  and  pencil  are  wielded  with 
aim  and  purpose,  as  evidenced  in  the  cartoon  “No  danger,” 
and  the  verses  in  “Ephraim  Smug.”  In  the  Russo-Turkish 
quarrel  Punch’s  long  and  consistent  distrust — to  put  it  mildly 

123 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


ABERDEEN  SMOKING  THE  PIPE  OF  PEACE 


— of  the  Tsar  Nicholas  was  the  governing  factor  which  deter¬ 
mined  him  to  espouse  the  side  of  the  Porte,  inspired  his 
cartoons  “Turkey  in  Danger”  and  “Paws  off,  Bruin,” 
and,  most  astonishing  of  all,  reconciled  him,  though 
most  reluctantly,  to  the  alliance  with  his  bei^  noire,  the 
Emperor  Napoleon  III.  For  when  war  came  in  the  spring 
of  1854  the  predictions  and  misgivings  of  alarmists  and 
prophets  were  falsified,  and  Great  Britain  was  arrayed  not 
against  but  on  the  side  of  France.  In  the  interval  divid¬ 
ing  the  outbreak  of  hostilities  between  Russia  and  Turkey 
from  Great  Britain’s  declaration  of  war  on  March  28,  1854, 
Punch  threw  all  his  weight  into  the  balance  with  the  War  party 

124 


Outbreak  of  IV ar 


in  the  Cabinet,  and  bitterly  resented  the  alleged  pro-Russian 
sympathies  of  Lord  Aberdeen.  These  are  hinted  at  in  the  cartoon 
in  which  the  Prime  Minister  is  shown  with  the  British  Lion 
saying  “I  must  let  him  go,”  and  are  unmistakably  indicated 
in  the  charges  against  Lord  Aberdeen  of  blacking  the  Tsar’s 
boots,  and  prosecuting  the  war  in  a  dilatory  and  half-hearted 
way.  The  Manchester  School  and  the  “Pilgrimage  to  Russia  ” 
of  the  deputation  from  the  Society  of  Friends  to  carry  to  the 
Tsar  their  protest  against  the  war  are  severely  handled.  On 
the  other  hand  belief  in  the  righteousness  of  our  cause  did  not 
blind  Punch  to  the  negligence  and  worse  of  those  charged  with 
the  conduct  of  military  operations  and  the  equipment  of  our 
forces.  He  regrets  the  typical  English  attitude,  in  regard  to 
preparations,  that  the  whole  thing  was  “rather  a  bore.”  The 
need  of  organized  efficiency  is  preached  in  every  number,  and, 
above  all,  the  debt  of  honour  owed  by  the  nation  to  the  rank 


ITINERANT  Newsman,  No.  I:  “  I  say,  Bill,  what’are  you  givin’  ’em?” 

Ditto,  No.  2:  “Grand  Massacre  of  the  French,  and  Terrible  Slaughter  of  the 
British  Troops.” 


125 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


and  file  of  our  fighting  men  and  to  their  dependents.  Quite 
early  in  the  war  we  find  this  excellent  plea  on  behalf  of  “The 
girls  they  leave  behind  them  ”  :  — 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  “A  Naval  Officer,”  writing  in 
The  Times,  will  not  vainly  have  called  attention  to  the  position 
in  which  the  wives  of  soldiers  will  be  placed  by  the  departure  of 
their  husbands  on  foreign  service  for  the  defence  of  Europe  and 
mankind  against  the  enemy  Nicholas.  As  to  the  soldier’s  pay,  he 
half  starves  upon  it  himself,  and  after  his  semi-starvation  there 
remains  not  the  value  of  a  crumb  to  be  handed  over  to  his  wife  and 
perhaps  children.  The  girl — and,  maybe,  the  little  girls  and  boys — 
left  by  him  have  surely  a  claim  superior  to  that  of  the  mate  and 
progeny  of  the  lazy  clown  and  the  sottish  and  improvident  mechanic. 
It  is  just  that  relief  should  be  dealt  out  to  them  with  no  parochial 
hand,  but  with  a  palm  a  little  wider  open  than  that  of  the  relieving 
officer,  and  in  a  spirit  of  consideration  somewhat  more  kindly  than 
the  beadle’s. 

The  “Soldier’s  Dream  ”  of  the  kind  lady  who  came  to  visit 
his  wife  and  children  is  an  appeal  to  translate  the  vision  into 
reality.  And  there  were  other  grievances.  The  breakdown  of 
the  postal  service  to  the  seat  of  war  and  the  injustice  of  making 
the  recipients  pay  2s.  for  each  letter  are  shown  up  in  “Dead 
Letters  from  the  Baltic.” 

But  this  was  a  minor  matter  compared  with  the  grievous 
scandal  of  the  hospitals,  disclosed  by  William  Russell,  the  fear¬ 
less  correspondent  of  The  Times,  and  ultimately  remedied  by  the 
exertions  of  Sidney  Herbert  and,  above  all,  of  Florence  Night¬ 
ingale.  This  had  moved  the  country  deeply,  and  the  indignation 
was  not  easily  allayed.  Florence  Nightingale’s  services  are 
repeatedly  referred  to.  She  was  Punch’s  chief  heroine  in  these 
years,  from  the  day  of  her  first  mention  and  the  publication  of 
“The  Nightingale’s  Song  ”  :  — 

THE  NIGHTINGALE’S  SONG  TO  THE  SICK  SOLDIER 

Listen,  soldier,  to  the  tale  of  the  tender  Nightingale, 

’Tis  a  charm  that  soon  will  ease  your  wounds  so  cruel, 

Singing  medicine  for  your  pain,  in  a  sympathizing  strain, 

With  a  jug,  jug,  jug  of  lemonade  or  gruel. 

126 


Song  of  the  Nightingale 


Singing  bandages  and  lint,  salve  and  cerate  without  stint, 

Singing  plenty  both  of  liniment  and  lotion, 

And  your  mixtures  pushed  about,  and  the  pills  for  you  served  out, 
With  alacrity  and  promptitude  of  motion. 

Singing  light  and  gentle  hands,  and  a  nurse  who  understands 
How  to  manage  every  sort  of  application, 

From  a  poultice  to  a  leech;  whom  you  haven’t  got  to  teach 
The  way  to  make  a  poppy  fomentation. 


Singing  pillows  for  you  smoothed,  smart  and  ache  and  anguish 
soothed, 

By  the  readiness  of  feminine  invention  ; 

Singing  fever’s  thirst  allayed,  and  the  bed  you’ve  tumbled  made, 
With  a  careful  and  considerate  attention. 

Singing  succour  to  the  brave,  and  a  rescue  from  the  grave, 

Hear  the  Nightingale  that’s  come  to  the  Crimea, 

’Tis  a  Nightingale  as  strong  in  her  heart  as  in  her  song, 

To  carry  out  so  gallant  an  idea. 

127 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


This  is  only  one  of  a  whole  series  of  poems — notably  one 
written  at  the  time  of  her  dangerous  illness  in  May,  1855 — 
inspired  by  the  “Lady  of  the  Lamp,”  who  did  not  forget,  on 
her  side,  to  acknowledge  that  the  wounded  common  soldiers 
had  behaved  “like  gentlemen  and  Christians  to  their  nurses.” 
Her  saintship  is  secure,  in  spite  of  the  adroit  disparagement  of 
modern  iconoclasts;  and  the  verdict  of  the  common  soldier  was 


“Well,  Jack,  here’s  good  news  from  home.  We’re  to  have  a  medal.” 

“That’s  very  kind.  Maybe  one  of  these  days  we  ll  have  a  coat  to  stick  it  on.” 


happily  expressed  by  a  private  at  a  dinner  given  to  Crimean 
troops  by  the  people  of  Folkestone  and  Hythe  in  1856:  “We 
cannot  forget  Miss  Nightingale — nor  can  we  forget  mis¬ 
management.” 

Florence  Nightingale  was  not  forgotten  by  the  nation ;  the 
Queen  sent  her  an  autograph  letter  of  thanks  and  a  brooch,  but 
no  official  recognition  was  bestowed  upon  her  by  the  British 
Government  until  1907,  when  she  was  given  the  Order  of  Merit. 
As  for  William  Russell,  Punch  laboured  in  season  and  out  of 
season  to  secure  some  public  acknowledgment  of  his  humanity 

128 


Familiar  Grievances 


and  courage,  but  the  debt  remained  unpaid  for  forty  years,  and 
was  then  liquidated  by  a  mere  knighthood.  The  Crimean  War 
was  not  a  great  war,  judged  by  modern  standards,  but  it 
assuredly  was  not  a  picnic,  and  it  abounded  in  prospective 
plagiarism.  Note,  for  example,  the  complaint  of  the  treatment 
of  the  “Jolly  Russian  prisoners,”  in  the  winter  of  1854: — 

How  jolly  the  prisoner,  who  gets  for  his  pay, 

From  his  captor’s  own  purse  seven  shillings  a  day  ! 

And  that’s  how  we  pension  our  officer-foes, 

For  which  we  shall  certainly  pay  through  the  nose. 

The  nation  that  prisoners  so  handsomely  pays 
The  wages  of  postmen  will  probably  raise, 

And  doubtless  provide  on  a  grand  scale  for  all 
The  children  and  wives  of  our  soldiers  who  fall. 

Note  again  the  criticisms  of  official  reticence  about  individual 
acts  of  bravery  in  the  lines  “The  Unmentioned  Brave:  Song 
by  a  Commanding  Officer,”  early  in  1855  :  — 

Oh  !  no,  we  never  mention  them, 

Their  names  must  not  be  heard, 

My  hand  Routine  forbids  to  trace 
Of  their  exploits  one  word. 

Most  glorious  though  their  deeds  may  be, 

To  say  it  I  regret, 

When  they  expect  a  word  from  me, 

They  find  that  I  forget. 

You  say  that  they  are  happy  now, 

The  bravest  of  the  brave, 

A  “special”  pen  recording  how 
Mere  Grenadiers  behave. 

Of  “special”  pens  I  disapprove, 

An  inconvenient  set, 

Who  oftentimes  the  veil  remove, 

And  print  what  we  forget. 

The  charges  of  incompetence  in  the  conduct  of  the  war  and 
of  greed  among  those  who  made  profit  out  of  it  have  a  painfully 
familiar  ring.  Generals,  beginning  with  Lord  Hardinge,  were 
j-i  129 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


A  DISTRESSED  AGRICULTURIST 


Landlord:  “Well,  Mr.  Springwheat,  according  to  the  papers,  there  seems  to 
be  a  probability  of  a  cessation  of  hostilities.” 

Tenant  (who  strongly  approves  of  war  prices)  :  “  Goodness  gracious  !  Why, 
you  don’t  mean  to  say  there’s  any  DANGER  OF  PEACE  ?  ” 


too  old;  or  they  were  “blundering  cavalrymen.”  Heroism  was 
kept  severely  in  its  place  or  inadequately  rewarded,  as  when 
a  drummer-boy,  who  had  shown  conspicuous  gallantry  at  the 
battle  of  the  Alma,  was  given  by  the  Prince  Consort;  or, 
again,  when  a  gallant  sergeant  was  given  a  silk  handkerchief 
hemmed  by  the  Queen.  Why,  asks  Punch,  was  he  not  made 
an  ensign  ?  Of  a  review  of  wounded  soldiers  by  the  Queen  he 
observes  that  it  would  have  been  more  gracious  if  she  had  gone 
to  the  hospital  instead  of  having  the  invalids  brought  up  to 
the  palace  to  be  inspected.  In  the  same  vein  is  the  dialogue, 
“Honour  to  the  Brave  ”  :  — 


Flunkey  (reads)  :  “Yesterday  thirty  of  the  Invalids  from  the 
Crimea  were  inspected  .  .  .  many  of  the  gallant  fellows  were  dread¬ 
fully  mutilated  at  the  Alma  and  Inkerman.  .  .  .  After  the  inspection 
ten  of  the  Guards  were  regaled  in  the  Servants’  Hall.” 


130 


Combatants  and  Non-Combatants 


Flunkey  (loq.)  :  “Regaled  in  the  Servants’  ’All!  Eh?  Well,  I 
don’t  think  they’ve  any  call  to  grumble  about  not  bein’  ‘  Honoured 
Sufficient !  ’  ” 

The  navvies  who  volunteered  for  service  in  the  Crimea  are 
not  forgotten  by  Punch.  When  cheers  are  raised  for  the 
fighting  men  and  their  commanders, 

As  loud  a  cheer  give,  England,  to  the  Navvies’  gallant  band, 

Who  have  gone  to  lend  our  warriors  a  stalwart  helping  hand. 

These  to  their  work  with  shovel  and  crowbar  as  true  will  stand 

As  those  to  theirs  with  bayonet,  with  rifle  and  with  brand. 


The  Charge  of  the  Light  Brigade1  prompts  Leech’s  picture 
of  “A  Trump  Card(igan)  but,  rather  than  with  the  officers, 
Punch,  throughout  the  war,  was  more  concerned  with  the  rank 
and  file,  and  with  instances  of  unfair  differentiation  between 
officers  and  men,  notably  in  regard  to  the  sale  of  promotions  and 
the  grants  of  leave,  satirized  in  the  cartoon,  “The  New  Game 
of  Follow  my  Leader,”  in  which  a  very  diminutive  bugler, 
advancing  in  front  of  a  long  file  of  soldiers,  addresses  the  com¬ 
mander-in-chief  :  “Please,  General,  may  me  and  these  other 
chaps  have  leave  to  go  home  on  urgent  Private  affairs?  ” 

The  efforts  of  the  Peace  Party  are  a  constant  source  of  de¬ 
risive  criticism,  as  in  the  bitter  stanzas,  “Mr.  Gladstone’s  Peace 
Song.”  Even  more  bitter  is  the  onslaught  in  the  year  1856 
on  John  Bright :  — 

Merrily  danced  the  Quaker  Bright, 

And  merrily  danced  that  Quaker, 

When  he  heard  that  Kars  was  in  hopeless  plight, 

And  Mouravieff  meant  tO'  take  her. 

He  said  he  knew  it  was  wrong  to  fight, 

He’d  help  nor  Devil  nor  Baker, 

But  to  see  that  the  battle  was  going  right, 

O  !  merrily  danced  the  Quaker. 

1  Punch  welcomed  Tennyson’s  famous  poem,  which  originally  appeared  in 
the  Examiner ,  but  could  not  agree  with  the  view  expressed  in  “  Maud  ”  that 
war  is  better  than  peace,  though  he  held  that  it  might  be  the  only  way — as  at 
the  moment — to  secure  it. 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


The  article  in  which  we  read  that  “  Wholesale  slaughter  and 
devastation,  when  you  are  driven  to  it,  is  the  only  economy  of 
slaughter  and  devastation,”  is  a  definitely  frank  espousal  of 
the  doctrine  of  “frightfulness.”  Cobden  and  Bright,  “our 
calico  friends,”  are  mercilessly  assailed  in  every  number;  Cobden 
in  particular  for  his  pamphlet,  “What  next,  and  next?  ”  and  for 
his  servility  to  America.  Peace  came  at  the  end  of  March,  1856, 
with  its  aftermath  of  criticism,  dissatisfaction,  discontent  with 
the  Peace  terms,  and  fierce  comments  on  generals  and  con¬ 
tractors,  mismanagement  and  neglect  of  men  and  horses,  and 
on  the  failure  of  the  navy.  Already  the  Sebastopol  Blue  Book 

had  appeared — a  painful  document  with  “delay,”  “want  of - ” 

and  “unaccountable  neglect”  appearing  on  every  page.  The 
discussion  of  the  Peace  Treaty  in  Parliament  prompts  Punch 
to  mitigated  “joy  and  satisfaction  ”  over  what  he  calls 
“Walewski’s  Treaty  of  Peace  to  praise  Lord  Malmesbury — 


THE  BRITISH  LION  SMELLS  A  RAT 

132 


Paying  the  Bill 


no  favourite  of  his;  to  describe  Lord  Aberdeen  as  crawling  out 
“like  an  old  slug,  now  that  the  war-storm  is  over,”  to  express 
his  general  approbation,  tempered  by  his  “preposterous  love  of 
Russia  ” ;  and  to  condemn  Disraeli,  the  leader  of  the  Opposition, 
for  his  ignominious  silence  in  the  Commons.  The  speeches  by 
Lord  Panmure  in  the  Lords,  and  Lord  Palmerston  in  the  Com¬ 
mons,  in  moving  the  votes  of  thanks  to  our  soldiers,  sailors, 
marines,  militia,  and  Foreign  Legion,  and  those  of  the  Leaders 
of  the  Opposition,  who  seconded  them,  were  appropriate,  but 
fell  short  of  the  merits  of  the  theme.  “Certain  figures,  given  on 
official  authority,  tell  the  whole  story  of  the  two  years’  war  with 
grim  succinctness.  We  have  lost  22,467  men,  of  whom  but 
3,532  died  in  battle  or  from  wounds.”  Nothing  is  new  :  in 
emphasizing  the  demand  that  Russia  must  be  made  to  pay  the 
bill,  and  declaring  that  her  attempts  to  evade  the  Treaty  must 
be  rigorously  dealt  with,  Punch  strikes  a  note  all  too  familiar 
in  the  last  two  years  and  a  half.  His  general  attitude  is  summed 
up  in  the  lines  on  “Rejoicings  for  Peace  :  — 

Thank  Heaven  the  War  is  ended  ! 

That  is  the  general  voice, 

But  let  us  feign  no  splendid 
Endeavours  to  rejoice. 

To  cease  from  lamentation 

We  may  contrive — but — pooh  ! 

Can’t  rise  to  exultation, 

And  cock-a-doodle-doo  ! 

We  can’t  pass  now  direct  from  grief  to  laughter, 

Like  supernumeraries  on  the  stage, 

To  smiling  happiness  from  settled  rage; 

We  look  before  and  after. 

Before,  to-  all  those  skeletons  and  corses 

Of  gallant  men  and  noble  horses ; 

After — though  sordid  the  consideration — 

Unto  a  certain  bill  to  pay, 

Which  we  shall  have  for  many  a  day, 

By  unrepeatable  taxation. 

Yet  never  fought  we  in  a  better  cause, 

Nor  conquered  yet  a  nobler  peace. 


133 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


We  stood  in  battle  for  the  eternal  laws; 

’Twas  an  affair  of  high  Police, 

Our  arms  enforced  a  great  arrest  of  State; 

And  now  remains — the  Rate. 

Friction  with  America  over  the  dismissal  of  our  Minister  at 
Washington  led  to  a  remarkably  frank  open  letter  to  President 
Pierce,  of  which  the  gist  is  :  “Let  us  fight  by  all  means  if  you 
will  have  it,  but  think  what  it  means  ”;  wholesome  advice.  On 
the  other  hand  the  temper  of  the  Manchester  Pacificists,  who 
had  taken  to  disparaging  Sardinia  and  the  cause  of  Italian 
liberty,  a  propos  of  the  advance  of  a  million  pounds  to  Sar¬ 
dinia,  prompted  the  invidious  suggestion  :  “They  possibly 
fear  lest  a  blow  struck  anywhere  for  freedom  should  cause  the 
countermand  of  a  trade  offer.”  Punch,  in  these  days  no  longer 
Pacificist,  hailed  Sidney  Herbert’s  Bill  for  improving  the  edu¬ 
cation  of  officers  in  the  Army,  and  establishing  a  board  to 
examine  for  commissions  and  promotions;  but  he  was  more 
enthusiastic  over  Sir  Joseph  Paxton’s  proposed  inquiry  into 
the  barracks  system,  quoting  with  approval  his  remark  that, 
while  every  prisoner  in  our  gaols  costs  us  ^150  a  year,  “the 
soldier  was  the  worst-lodged  person  in  the  Queen’s  Dominions.” 

Post-war  parallels  multiply  at  this  period,  the  year  1856 — 
in  the  recrudescence  of  crime  and  burglaries,  and  the 
garrotting  scare;  in  wholesale  criticism  of  Lord  Palmerston. 
There  is  an  excellent  burlesque  in  the  shape  of  an  imaginary 
article  from  the  Morning  Herald  on  the  execution  of  Palmerston 
on  Tower  Hill.  Immediately  after  exulting  over  “  Pam’s  ”  down¬ 
fall,  the  writer  passes  to  a  fulsome  adulation  of  the  dead. 
Here,  as  so  often  time  has  proved,  Punch  was  a  prophet 
as  well  as  a  critic.  Other  familiar  grounds  for  discontent  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Peace  terms  and  undue  leniency  to  Russia; 
in  friction  with  France;  wholesale  speculation  and  peculation; 
unnecessary  Parliamentary  expenditure;  and  complaints  of  high 
prices,  which,  by  the  way,  induced  Punch  to  suggest  abstinence 
as  the  best  means  of  bringing  down  the  price  of  sugar  and 
butter.  The  return  of  the  Guards  is  fitly  honoured  in  July, 
and  “The  Nightingale’s  Return”  in  August:  — 

04 


Incapable  Commanders 


Most  blessed  things  come  silently,  and  silently  depart; 

Noiseless  steals  spring-time  on  the  year,  and  comfort  on  the  heart ; 
And  still,  and  light,  and  gentle,  like  a  dew,  the  rain  must  be, 

To  quicken  seed  in  furrow  and  blossom  upon  tree. 

So  she,  our  sweet  Saint  Florence,  modest,  and  still,  and  calm, 
With  no  parade  of  martyr’s  cross,  no  pomp  of  martyr’s  palm, 

To  the  place  of  plague  and  famine,  foulness,  and  wounds  and  pain, 
Went  out  upon  her  gracious  toil,  and  so  returns  again. 

When  titles,  pensions,  orders,  with  random  hand  are  showered, 

’Tis  well  that,  save  with  blessings,  she  still  should  walk  undowered. 
What  title  like  her  own  sweet  name,  with  the  music  all  its  own? 
What  order  like  the  hak>  by  her  good  deeds  round  her  thrown? 

Lord  Hardinge,  the  commander-in-chief,  had  been  denounced 
as  “the  apex  of  incapacity,”  but  Punch  spoke  kindly  of  that 
gallant  old  hero  of  the  Peninsula  on  his  resignation.  He  was 
“all  bravery  and  kindness  except  when  opposed  to  Court  in¬ 
fluence,  and  then  he  could  neither  snub  great  people  nor  stand 
up  for  the  interests  of  the  Army.”  With  this  statement  we 
may  bracket  a  useful  obiter  dictum  on  appointments  gener¬ 
ally  :  “Too  much  ability  is  demanded  for  the  small  places,  and 
for  the  large  places  generally  too  little.”  No  confidence  is  shown 
in  the  “whitewashing  report”  of  the  Chelsea  Board  of  Inquiry 
into  the  charges  brought  against  Lord  Lucan,  Lord  Cardigan, 
and  others.  The  Board  was  packed  with  “aristocratic  officers,” 
and  its  report  is  described  as  “a  Chelsea  Hospital  salve  for 
curing  the  reputations  of  Lucan,  Cardigan,  and  Co.” 

Evidently  Punch  is  in  good  satirical  form,  for  he  follows 
this  sally  a  month  later  with  an  indignant  article  on 
the  appointment  of  an  earl’s  son,  aged  twelve,  to  be  a 
Royal  Page  at  ^200  a  year  for  four  yeais,  with  a  grant  of 
^500  as  outfit,  and  a  lieutenancy  in  the  Guards  without  pur¬ 
chase  ;  and  the  simultaneous  offer  of  a  commission  as  ensign  in 
a  marching  regiment  to  a  heroic  sergeant-major,  aged  forty, 
without  money  to  purchase  it.  A  bad  case  of  “ragging”  in  the 
Guards  comes  in  for  severe  castigation,  and  the  dismissal  of 
the  offenders  from  the  service  is  welcomed  as  a  step  in  the 
right  direction.  Nevertheless,  while  he  was  a  stern  critic  of 

135 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


extravagant  and  ill-conditioned  officers,  Punch  recognized  the 
need  of  decent  pay,  and  appealed  for  aid  from  the  State  to 
remedy  the  long-borne  grievance.  Amid  the  discordant  chorus 
of  criticism  and  discontent  which  arose  on  the  conclusion  of 
Peace,  happier  notes  are  sounded  in  the  references  to  the  initia¬ 
tion,  on  a  comprehensive  basis,  of  the  Order  of  Valour.  The 
principle  adopted  in  its  bestowal  is  set  forth  in  the  lines  which 
appeared  in  the  issue  of  February  23,  1856:  — 

Till  now  the  stars  and  garters 
Were  for  birth  or  fortune’s  son, 

And  as  oft  in  snug  home-quarters 
As  in  fields  of  fight  were  won. 

But  at  length  a  star  arises, 

Which  as  glorious  will  shine 
On  Smith’s  red  serge  vest  as  upon  the  breast 
Of  Smyth’s  scarlet  superfine. 

Too  long  mere  food  for  powder 
We’ve  deemed  our  rank  and  file, 

Now  higher  hopes  and  prouder 
Upon  the  soldier  smile. 

And  if  no  Marshal’s  bciton 

Private  Smith  in  his  knapsack  bears, 

At  least  in  the  War,  the  chance  of  the  star 
With  his  General  he  shares. 

The  first  distribution  of  the  “V.C.”  by  the  Queen  was  not 
made  until  June  26,  1857,  and  in  the  same  vein,  but  with  greater 
dignity  Punch  strove  to  render  justice  to  the  occasion  :  — 

THE  STAR  OF  VALOUR 

Distributed  by  the  Queen’s  Own  Hand. 

June  26,  1857. 

The  fount  of  Honour,  sealed  till  now 
To  all  save  claims  of  .rank  and  birth, 

Makes  green  the  laurel  on  the  brow 
Ennobled  but  by  soldier’s  worth. 

Of  these  the  bravest  and  the  best 

Who  ’scaped  the  chance  of  shot  and  sword, 

136 


The  Victoria  Cross 


England  doth,  by  her  Queen,  invest 
With  Valour’s  Cross — their  great  reward  ! 

Marking  her  sense  of  something  still, 

A  central  nobleness,  that  lies 

Deeper  than  rank  which  royal  will, 

Or  birth,  or  chance,  or  wealth  supplies. 

Knighthood  that  girds  all  valiant  hearts, 

Knighthood  that  crowns  each  fearless  brow ; 

That  knighthood  this  bronze  cross  imparts — 

Let  Fleece,  and  Bath,  and  Garter  bow  ! 

The  plainness  of  the  cross  aroused  critical  comment,  to 
which  expression  was  lent  in  the  epigram,  which  has  not  lost 
its  point  yet :  — 

Here’s  Valour’s  Cross,  my  men;  ’twill  serve, 

Though  rather  ugly — take  it, 

John  Bull  a  medal  can  deserve, 

But  can’t  contrive  to  make  it. 

But  the  very  simplicity  of  the  bronze  cross  has  lent  it  dis¬ 
tinction.  Punch  was  on  safer  ground  when  he  urged  that 
doctors  and  firemen  were  well  qualified  to  receive  it;  the 
Albert  Medal,  in  recognition  of  acts  of  gallantry  in  saving 
life  performed  by  anyone  whatever,  was  not  instituted  till 
1866.  Punch’s  democratic  bias  is  also  agreeably  shown 
in  his  plea  on  behalf  of  the  artisans  and  artificers  employed 
at  the  dockyards  and  arsenals,  whose  labours  shortened 
the  war,  but  who  were  thrown  out  of  work  on  its  conclusion. 
In  answer  to  their  petition  for  help  to  emigrate,  it  was 
intimated  to  them  that  the  Government  would  help  them 
if  they  would  help  themselves.  The  delay  of  the  Government 
in  fulfilling  their  side  of  the  bargain,  when  the  men  had  com¬ 
plied  with  this  condition,  gives  occasion  for  a  piece  of  sarcastic 
criticism  on  State  parsimony.  And  in  this  context  we  may 
note  the  charming  poem  on  Mother  Seacole,  the  brave  old 
sutler  in  the  Crimea,  beloved  of  all  soldiers,  who  had  fallen  on 
evil  days,  but  was  relieved  by  public  subscription,  largely  due 

137 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


to  the  appeal  in  Punch’s  columns.  Lastly,  and  to  sum  up 
this  review,  we  may  note  the  shrewd  common  sense  of  the 
timely  article  setting  forth  the  pros  and  cons  of  Army  Pur¬ 
chase,  in  which  the  writer  emphasizes  the  need  of  a  higher 
standard  of  brains  and  ability.  Under  the  existing  tradition, 
the  abolition  of  purchase  would  probably  mean  promotion  by 
influence — an  equally  vicious  system.  To  alter  the  way  of  get¬ 
ting  a  commission  was  of  no  avail  unless  you  altered  the  thing 
itself.  Efficiency  was  not  incompatible  with  purchase,  but  it 
was  incompatible  with  “taking  care  of  Dowb  ” — not  the  only 
reference  in  Punch  to  the  historic  telegram  of  Lord  Panmure 
to  Lord  Raglan  on  behalf  of  his  protege  and  relative,  Captain 
Dowbiggin. 


I3S 


ENTR’ACTE 


LONDON  IN  THE  MID-NINETEENTH 
CENTURY 


THE  survey  of  London,  as  set  forth  in  the  pages  of  Punch 
seventy  and  eighty  years  ago,  undoubtedly  ministers  to 
our  complacency.  Much  that  was  picturesque  has 
vanished,  but  the  improvements  in  the  state  of  the  streets,  in 
lighting,  communications,  and,  above  all,  sanitation,  cannot  be 
easily  overstated.  In  the  early  ’forties  three  methods  of  paving 
the  streets  were  employed:  stones,  Macadam,  and  wood;  and 
according  to  Punch  they  were  all  bad.  The  stones  caused  jolt¬ 
ing,  Macadam  was  muddy,  while  wood  pavement,  which  was 
only  partially  used  in  a  few  favoured  localities — the  Poultry  and 
Lombard  Street — was  a  constant  source  of  danger  by  reason 
of  its  slipperiness.  The  spectacle,  so  familiar  in  recent  years, 
of  horses  skating  on  all  four  feet  down  inclines  is  noticed 
in  the  year  1849.  Hansom,  the  architect,  had  taken  out  the 
patent  for  his  safety  carriage  in  1834,  and  that  strange  vehicle, 
which  Disraeli  celebrated  as  “the  Gondola  of  London,”  and 
which  is  now  relegated  to  the  position  of  a  curiosity  or  a  relic, 
was  fully  established  in  a  popularity  which  lasted  for  half  a 
century  or  more.  To  those  like  the  present  writer  who  have  been 
in  a  hansom  when  one  wheel  came  off,  or  the  horse’s  belly-band 
broke,  or  who  have  been  propelled  against  the  glass  when  the 
horse  came  down,  the  wonder  is  that  it  lasted  so  long.  Yet, 
on  a  fine  day,  it  was  a  pleasing,  if  precarious,  vehicle,  and 
inspired  an  exiled  poet  in  the  ’eighties  to  say  that  he  would 
“give  a  monarch’s  ransom  for  a  Piccadilly  hansom.”  The 
old  four-wheeler  or  “growler”  still  lingers  and  emerges  during 
strikes  of  taxi-drivers,  but  Punch,  though  he  found  the  cabman 
swathed  in  capes  a  fertile  theme  for  his  pencil,  in  general  re¬ 
garded  him  as  a  rapacious  and  extortionate  old  bandit,  and  his 
cab  a  squalid  and  insanitary  means  of  transit.  The  one-day 

141 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


cab  strike  in  1853 
grew  out  of  the  new 
Act  fixing  the  fare 
at  6d.  a  mile.  Under 
the  new  police  regu¬ 
lations,  whenever  a 
dispute  as  to  mile¬ 
age  occurred,  both 
parties  could  deposit 
five  shillings  and 
have  the  matter  de- 


CABMAN  IS  SUPPOSED  TO  HAVE  TAKEN 
THE  WRONG  TURNING— THAT’S  ALL 


cided  by  a  magis¬ 
trate.  In  one  in¬ 
stance  the  cabman, 
not  having  five  shil¬ 
lings,  lost  his  case 
and  was  fined.  A 
good  deal  of  public 
sympathy,  fostered 
by  the  Examiner, 
was  enlisted  on  be¬ 
half  of  the  cabman,  but  Punch  was  rigidly  on  the  side 
of  the  public  as  against  the  proprietors  of  dirty  cabs, 
miserable  horses,  and  their  abusive  and  rapacious  drivers. 
The  stringency  of  the  regulations  may  be  gathered  from 
the  lines  on  “A  Civil  Cabman’s  Sauce,”  based  on  a 
paragraph  which  appeared  in  The  Times.  A  cabman  had  been 
sentenced  by  the  Lord  Mayor  to  twenty  shillings  or  fourteen 
days  for  refusing  to  take  a  fare  because  he  wanted  his  tea.  The 
cabman  had  suggested  that  the  fare  might  also  require  that 
refreshment.  At  this  period,  it  may  be  also  noted,  cabmen  were 
not  allowed  to  smoke  when  on  their  stands.  Towards  its  close 
an  improvement  in  the  cab  service  is  acknowledged,  but  many 
years  were  to  elapse  before  the  institution  of  cab-shelters.  As 
for  the  rapacity  of  cabmen,  it  was  as  water  compared  with  wine 
when  judged  by  the  standard  of  taxi-drivers. 

Turning  next  to  the  ’buses,  some  of  us  are  old  enough  to 
remember  their  dim  interiors,  the  smell  of  damp,  sodden  straw 

142 


The  Ancient  Omnibus 


on  the  floors,  and  the  perilous  ascent  to  the  roof  by  what  was 
little  better  than  a  rope  ladder.  Still,  we  own  to  a  sneaking 
regret  for  the  old  ’bus  driver ;  to  sit  next  him  on  the  box-seat  was 
a  liberal  education  in  the  repartee  of  the  road.  The  “knife- 
board,”  as  the  low  partition  against  which  outside  passengers  sat 
back  to  back  was  called,  does  not  appear  until  after  1852.  The 
slow  speed  of  travel  by  ’bus  is  a  constant  source  of  satire;  a 
journey  to  the  remoter  suburbs,  if  Punch  is  to  be  believed,  took 
almost  as  long  as  it  now  takes  to  go  to  Exeter.  Yet,  with  familiar 
inconsistency,  he  constantly  rebukes  the  ’busmen  for  racing, 
especially  on  the  route  from  Putney  to  St.  Paul’s.  The  miseries 
of  the  crowded  interior,  what  with  dogs,  bundles,  bird-cages, 
and  wet  umbrellas,  are  vividly  described,  and  it  was  not  until 
1849  that  fixed  fares  were  introduced.  Up  till  then  the  sum 
was  left  to  the  caprice  of  the  conductor,  or  “cad.”  Competition 
brought  improvement  in  the  shape  of  a  superior  type  of 
“saloon”  ’bus,  and  towards  the  end  of  this  period  complaints 
against  cabs  and  ’buses  died  down  somewhat;  but  in  comfort, 


Amy  (to  Rose):  “Good  gracious.  Rose,  I’m  afraid  from^the  way  the  man  taiks 
that  he  is  intoxicated!  ” 

CABBY  (impressively):  “  Beg  pardon.  Miss  !  N-n-not  (hie)  intossi — intossi-cated 
hie) — itsh  only  shlight  ’ped-ped-pediment  in  speesh,  Miss  !  ” 

143 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


cleanliness,  ancl  speed,  the  difference  between  the  public  vehicles 
of  1857  and  1920  is  immense.  About  the  former  year  the  reader 
will  find  a  good  description  in  “The  Fine  Old  English  Omni¬ 
bus,”  of  its  discomforts,  stuffiness  and  perils  and  the  disagree¬ 
able  qualities  of  the  “cad  ”  and  driver.  In  one  respect  only, 
London  was  better  served — on  its  waterway.  The  Thames 
passenger  steamers  were  a  great  feature  of  the  time.  Not  that 
they  were  above  criticism ;  collisions  were  frequent,  overloading 
was  habitual,  the  conduct  of  the  passengers  was  not  above 
reproach,  and  in  general  the  service  was  condemned  as  both 
risky  and  inefficient,  and  ranked  along  with  smallpox  and  rail¬ 
roads  as  a  remedy  for  over-population. 

From  vehicles  one  passes  by  a  natural  transition  to  those 
who  were  charged  with  the  regulation  of  traffic,  though  its 

masterly  control 
by  the  police  had 
not  yet  been  deve¬ 
loped  to  the  point 
at  which  it  has  fre¬ 
quently  elicited 
the  admiration  of 
foreign  visitors. 
The  new  police¬ 
men,  who  had 
been  embodied 
under  the  Metro¬ 
politan  Police  Act 
of  182  9,  when 
Peel  was  Home 
Secretary,  were 
no  special  favour¬ 
ites  of  Punch  in 
his  early  years, 
and  his  opinion 
of  their  efficiency 
may  be  gauged 
by  his  greeting 
the  threat  of  their 


FEMALE  'BUSES  (A  Prophecy) 


144 


The  New  Police  Force 


strike  with  the  remark  that  he  did  not  think  it  would  make  much 
difference.  Their  relations  with  cooks — a  fruitful  source  of 
satire — began  to  be  a  theme  of  ridicule  in  the  late  ’forties,  and 
inspired  in  Punch  “The  Loves  of  the  New  Police,”  recount¬ 
ing  the  tragedy  of  a  constable  who  forfeited  his  post  owing  to 
a  fatal  weakness  for  chops  and  stout. 


THE  POLICE 


We  have  spoken  already  of  the  postmen ;  for  their  dress  in 
1844  students  of  official  costume  may  be  referred  to  the  picture 
overleaf. 

As  for  lighting,  gas  was  already  in  general,  though  by  no 
means  universal,  use.  The  gasless  condition  of  Kensington  is 
bewailed  in  1844;  the  bad  lighting  of  Eaton  Square  in  1849. 
The  use  of  electricity  was  foreshadowed,  but  that  was  all.  For 
domestic  purposes  the  commonest  illuminant  was  “camphine,” 
an  oil  distilled  from  turpentine.  Miss  Muloek  in  The  Ogil- 
vies  speaks  of  it  as  being  always  either  “too  dull  or  too 
bright,”  and  Punch  is  not  enthusiastic  as  to  its  virtues.  The 
agility  of  the  street  lamplighter  lent  point  to  a  proverb  which 
has  become  obsolete  under  modern  conditions,  for  the  lamp- 
K-i  145 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


SIR  JAMES  GRAHAM  HOLDS  A  REVIEW  OF  THE  LONDON 

POSTMEN 


lighter  has  no  longer  need  to  climb  and  never  runs.  In  1844 
Punch  speaks  of  ihe  Lucifer  having  replaced  the  Congreve — 
or  “Congry  ”  as  it  was  vulgarly  called — friction  match;  but  the 
change  of  name  was  later,  according  to  Mayhew  and  Charles 
Knight,  who  speaks  of  the  penny  box  of  Lucifer  matches  as 
“a  triumph  of  science.” 

The  linking-up  of  central  with  outlying  London  had  hardly 
begun  in  the  ’forties.  Many  of  the  nearer  suburbs  were  then 
practically  detached  villages.  Kensington  was  reached  by  a 
dark,  badly-laid  country  road  from  Knightsbridge,  where,  till 
1846,  carters  used  to  stop  at  the  Half-way  House,  a  little  road¬ 
side  inn,  for  their  half-pint  of  porter  and  bit  of  bread  and  cheese. 
The  isolation  of  Brook  Green,  Islington,  Battersea  Fields,  even 
Chelsea,  when  a  little  allowance  has  been  made  for  satiric 
license,  was  a  real  thing.  Lord  Ebury  shot  snipe  in  Pimlico  in 
the  ’twenties;  and  they  probably  frequented  its  swamps  as  late 
as  the  year  1840.  What  are  now  parks  or  residential  quarters 
were  then  waste  spaces  or  open  fields.  The  ‘‘Pontine  Marshes” 
of  Shepherd’s  Bush,  as  Punch  called  them,  have  long  been 
drained  and  covered  with  houses.  But  there  were  wildernesses 

146 


Municipal  Apathy 


even  in  central  London,  notably  Leicester  Square  and  Lin¬ 
coln’s  Inn  Fields.  The  “dead  seclusion  ”  and  unkempt  appear¬ 
ance  of  Leicester  Square  was  a  standing  reproach  to  Londoners. 
As  for  the  terra  incognita  of  Lincoln’s  Inn  Fields,  “the  Metro¬ 
politan  Bush,”  it  only  differed  from  Leicester  Square  because 
it  was  “invisible  to  the  naked  eye.”  The  dirt  and  confusion 
and  cruelty  to  animals  which  reigned  in  the  region  of  Smith- 
field  market,  and  are  the  subject  of  reiterated  protests  in  Punch, 
belong  to  an  unregretted  past.  Punch  was  a  great  Londoner. 
We  talk  of  people  being  house-proud;  he  was  city-proud,  and 
it  irked  him  to  see  historic  squares  and  public  places  neglected 
or  disfigured.  For  years  and  years  his  complaints  go  up  against 
the  interminable  delays  in  the  erection  and  completion  of  the 
Nelson  memorial  in  Trafalgar  Square,  the  lions  that  lingered, 
the  fountains  that  would  not  play.  They  begin  in  1844;  in 
1845  he  calls  Trafalgar  Square  “England’s  Folly,”  and  eleven 
years  later  we  read:  — 


In  England,  the  growth  of  buildings,  like  that  of  its  institutions, 
is  exceedingly  slow,  if  sure.  Years  are  taken  over  a  building  that 
on  the  Continent  would  be  run  up  in  almost  as  many  months.  A 


celebrated  German  statistician  has 
particulars  : 

To  erect  a  Simple  Column 
Ditto,  with  Lions,  everything 
complete 

To  build  a  Common  Bridge 
Ditto  a  Suspension  Bridge 
Ditto  Houses  of  Parliament 


sent  us  the  following  incredible 

It  takes  in  England  12  years. 

> )  )  >  24  , , 

>  >  )  >  1 5  >  * 

>  >  >  1  25  >  j 

A  trifle  under  100  ,, 


With  statues,  the  same  authority  proceeds  to  say,  they  have  a 
curious  plan.  They  erect  the  pedestal  first,  and  then  leave  it  in  one 
of  their  most  public  places  to  be  ready  for  the  statue  of  some  cele¬ 
brated  man,  when  they  have  caught  one.  Thus,  in  Trafalgar  Square, 
they  have  a  pedestal  that  has  been  waiting  for  years.  It  is  supposed 
to  be  for  the  COMING  MAN,  but  apparently  he  is  in  no  hurry  to 
make  his  appearance. 

“Britannia,”  Punch  makes  the  remark,  is  assuredly  “a 
great  deal  happier  in  her  heroes  than  in  her  efforts  to  perpetuate 

147 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


their  memory.”  And  six  years  later  he  adds  :  “We  cannot  make 
a  statue  that  is  not  ridiculous  ourselves,  nor,  although  we  invite 
foreign  competition,  is  it  likely  that  we  shall  get  any  other  kind 
of  statue  made.”  In  the  same  spirit  of  national  self-criticism 
the  following  lines  appear  in  1851  on  “The  Nation  and  Its 
Monuments  ”  :  — 

The  National  Gallery  holds  its  place 
In  Trafalgar’s  noble  Square, 

And  being  a  national  disgrace, 

Will  remain  for  ever  there. 

The  Duke  on  the  Arch  was  raised,  in  spite 
Of  all  that  the  world  could  say ; 

And  because  he  stands  on  an  awkward  site, 

We,  of  course,  shall  let  him  stay. 

The  Palace  of  Glass  is  so  much  admired, 

Both  in  Country  and  in  Town, 

That  its  maintenance  is  by  all  desired  : 

So  we  mean  to  pull  it  down. 

In  1852  Punch  gives  a  list  of  things  indefinitely  postponed, 
in  which  we  find  the  completion  of  Nelson’s  pillar;  the 
catalogue  of  the  British  Museum  Library — Punch  was  no 
admirer  of  Panizzi,  the  librarian ;  the  Reform  of  the  City 
Corporations;  the  completion  of  the  new  Houses  of  Parliament; 
an  omnibus  that  will  carry  a  person  quicker  than  he  can  walk; 
good  water;  cheap  gas;  perfect  sewerage;  and  unadulterated 
milk.  The  campaign  against  Barry,  the  architect  of  the  new 
Houses  of  Parliament,  was  conducted  with  a  good  deal  of 
acrimony.  Punch  began  by  objecting  to  the  cost,  then  to 
Barry’s  “long  sleep,”  and  later  on  to  the  expensive  experiments 
in  ventilation,  and  the  darkness  of  the  reporters’  gallery.  Nor 
was  he  less  impatient  over  the  delays  in  the  completion  of  the 
Hungerford  Suspension  Bridge  and  the  new  Westminster 
Bridge — begun  in  1854,  eight  years  after  the  old  bridge  had 
been  closed  as  dangerous,  and  opened  in  i860.  The  future  of 
the  derelict  Marble  Arch  moved  him  to  frequent  and  caustic 
comment  before  its  removal  from  outside  Buckingham  Palace 

148 


London  Changes  and  Improvements 


to  its  present  site  in  1850.  As  early  as  1853  there  was  talk  of 
removing  Temple  Bar,  but  this  was  not  done  till  1878.  And  the 
mention  of  Buckingham  Palace  recalls  the  fact  that  in  1857, 
when  it  was  proposed  to  cut  a  carriage  road  through  St.  James’s 
Park,  there  was  no  public  road  past  the  palace.  The  pelicans, 
which  delight  us  to-day  on  their  sadly-diminished  lake,  date 
back  to  the  time  of  Charles  II,  who  received  a  gift  of  these 
birds  from  the  Tsar  of  Muscovy. 

The  record  of  new  buildings,  constructions,  monuments, 
and  “  improvements  ”  kept  by  Punch  is  not  complete,  but  it 
serves  to  illustrate  the  changes  between  mid-Victorian  and 
Georgian  London.  The  Thames  Tunnel,  Brunei’s  pioneer  work 
in  the  long  series  of  subterranean  engineering  achievements 
which  have  transformed  the  under-crust  of  London,  was  opened 
in  August,  1843,  and  on  October  28,  1844,  the  Queen  opened 
the  new  Royal  Exchange  amid  civic  junketings  which  caused 
“Q”  (Douglas  Jerrold)  to  deplore  the  absence  of  the  sons  of 
labour  from  a  hollow  pageant  in  which  only  merchant  princes 
were  represented.  The  reference  to  the  two  tall  buildings  at 
Albert  Gate  seems  to  indicate  an  apprehension  even  in  those 
early  days  of  the  coming  of  skyscrapers,  of  which  Queen 
Anne’s  Mansions  are  still  the  sole  realization.  Thackeray 
has  a  humorous  poem  on  “The  Pimlico  Pavilion,  which 
refers  to  the  pavilion  in  the  gardens  of  Buckingham  Palace, 
a  summer  house  with  a  central  octagon  room.  In  view 
of  Punch’s  persistent  attacks  on  the  Court  for  neglecting 
native  talent,  it  should  be  recorded  that  the  task  of  filling  the 
eight  lunettes  below  the  cornice  with  frescoes  was  entrusted 
to  eight  British  artists,  including  Stanfield,  Landseer,  and 
Maclise,  and  that  the  subjects  were  all  suggested  by  passages 
from  Milton’s  Comus.  On  Wyatt’s  unfortunate  colossal  statue 
of  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  erected  opposite  Apsley  House  in 
1846,  and  replaced  by  Boehm’s  smaller  equestrian  statue  in 
1883,  Punch  heaped  unstinted  ridicule  with  pen  and  pencil. 
Nor  was  he  less  hostile  in  his  criticisms  on  the  “hideous 
models  ”  submitted  for  the  proposed  memorial  to  the  Iron  Duke, 
when  these  designs  were  exhibited  in  1857,  describing  them 
as  “Nemesis  in  Plaster  of  Paris,”  and  representing  the  French 

149 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


Ambassador  as  telegraphing  to  his  Government:  “Waterloo 
is  avenged.” 

The  New  Billingsgate  buildings  merely  serve  as  an  excuse 
for  some  jocular  remarks  on  their  supposed  humanizing  in¬ 
fluence  on  the  Billingsgate  dialect. 

But  a  good  deal  of  space  is  devoted  to  Big  Ben,  his  name 
and  note  (E  natural),  and  the  vicissitudes  which  attended  his 
hanging  in  the  Clock  Tower.  Of  the  references  which  abound 
in  1856,  perhaps  the  most  notable  is  the  suggestion  that  the 
clapper  should  be  named  Gladstone,  “as,  without  doubt,  his  is 
the  loudest  tongue  in  Parliament.  The  announcement  in  1857 
that  a  crack  had  been  discovered  in  Big  Ben  led  to  an 
epigram  in  disparagement  of  Mr.  Gladstone’s  rival,  so  Punch 
was  able  to  have  it  both  ways:  — 

Big  Ben  is  cracked,  we  needs  must  own ; 

Small  Ben  is  sane,  past  disputation ; 

Yet  we  should  like  to  know  whose  tone 
Is  most  offensive  to  the  nation. 

The  late  Mr.  Henry  Jephson,  L.C.C.,  published  in  1907  an 
exhaustive  work  on  “The  Sanitary  Evolution  of  London.”  He 
quotes  Dickens’s  terrible  description  of  one  of  the  old  intra¬ 
mural  churchyards,  but  makes  no  mention  of  Punch’s  services 
in  the  cause  of  London  sanitation.  They  certainly  deserved  and 
deserve  recognition,  for  he  spared  no  effort  to  bring  home  to 
a  wider  public  than  that  reached  by  Blue  Books  and  Reports 
the  intimate  and  deadly  connexion  between  dirt  and  disease. 
As  early  as  the  year  1842  we  find  in  his  pages  this  grue¬ 
some  but  unexaggerated  pen-picture  of  the  Thames  and  its 
tributaries  :  — 

Vauxhall  contributes  lime,  Lambeth  pours  forth  a  rich  amalgam 
from  the  yards  of  knackers  and  bone-grinders,  Horseferry  liberally 
gives  up  all  its  dead  dogs,  Westminster  empties  its  treasures  into 
the  mighty  stream  by  means  of  a  common  sewer  of  uncommon 
dimensions,  the  Fleet-ditch  bears  in  its  inky  current  the  concentrated 
essences  of  Clerkenwell,  Field-lane,  Smithfield,  Cowcross — and  is, 
by  means  of  its  innumerable  branches,  augmented  by  the  potent 

150 


The  Filthy  Thames 


ingredients  of  St.  Giles’s,  Somers-town,  Barbican,  St.  Luke’s,  and 
the  surrounding  districts.  The  fluids  of  the  Whitechapel  slaughter¬ 
houses  call  in  their  transit  through  the  Minories  for  the  contributions 
of  Houndsditch,  Ratcliff  Highway,  Bevis  Marks,  and  Goodman’s 
Fields,  and  thus  richly  laden  pour  their  delicious  slime  into  the 
Thames  by  means  of  the  Tower-ditch.  Finally,  the  Surrey  side 
yields  the  refuse  of  tar-works  and  tan-yards,  and  it  is  allowed  by 


THE  "SILENT  HIGHWAY ’’-MAN 


all,  that  the  people  of  Deptford,  Woolwich,  and  those  situated  in 
the  lower  course  of  the  stream,  get  the  Thames  water  (which  here 
sustains  six  different  characters)  in  the  highest  perfection. 

The  cartoon,  The  “Silent  Highway  ’’-Man,  was  published  in 
1858,  but  it  is,  perhaps,  the  best  of  the  many  pictorial  com¬ 
ments  on  the  above  text.  The  noisome  state  of  the  Serpentine 
— “a  lake  of  mere  manure” — constantly  affronted  Punch’s  sen¬ 
sitive  nose.  Insanitary  Smithfield  and  squalid  Covent  Garden 
elicit  dishonourable  mention  from  the  early  ’forties  onward.  But 

151 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


it  was  in  1849,  the  year  of  the  cholera  and  typhus  visitation, 
that  his  crusade  against  London  filth — “Plague,  Pestilence 
and  Co.” — began  in  earnest.  The  evil  is  traced  to  the  triple 
source  of  bad  drainage,  overcrowded  intramural  burial  grounds, 
and  the  unchecked  pollution  of  the  river.  Punch  salutes  Mr. 
G.  A.  Walker,  the  author  of  “Gatherings  from  Graveyards,” 
as  a  public  benefactor  for  his  zeal  in  endeavouring  to  secure  the 
abolition  of  intramural  interments,  and  tilts  savagely  at  ob¬ 
structive  Boards  of  Guardians,  vestry  clerks,  and  extortionate 
undertakers,  who  profited  by  the  maintenance  of  the  abuse.  He 
gives  us  an  “Elegy  written  in  a  London  Churchyard,”  on  a 
victim  of  an  epidemic  brought  on  by  preventable  dirt;  he 
exhibits  “the  water  that  John  drinks”;  he  represents  Hamlet 
soliloquizing  in  a  London  graveyard;  and  in  1849  he  suggests 
the  revision  of  street  nomenclature  in  accordance  with  official 
acquiescence  in  the  then  existing  dominion  of  dirt. 

Though  by  no  means  an  enthusiastic  admirer  of  the  Duke 
of  Wellington,  Punch  confesses  that  he  would  like  to  see  him 
appointed  Sanitary  Dictator.  The  Thames,  with  its  “acres  of 
cesspool,”  is  likened  to  “a  fetid  Dead  Sea.”  Yet  Punch  refused 
to  lay  the  blame  at  the  door  of  Lord  John  Russell  or  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  who  were  held  guilty  by  the  Morning  Herald  for  the 
twelve  thousand  deaths  from  cholera  in  London.  The  real 
criminals  were  to  be  found  elsewhere.  The  ravages  of  typhus 
and  cholera  in  1849  have  been  surpassed  in  recent  years  by 
those  of  influenza,  but  the  toll  was  heavy,  and  heaviest  among 
the  poor :  — 

For  three  sad  months  Britannia  mourned  her  children  night  and  day, 
For  three  sad  months  she  strove  in  vain  the  pestilence  to  stay; 
Medicine,  helpless,  groped  and  guessed,  and  tried  all  arts  to  save, 
But  the  dead  carried  with  them  their  secret  to  the  grave. 

Death  sat  at  the  gaunt  weaver’s  side,  the  while  he  plied  the  loom  ; 
Death  turned  the  wasting  grinder’s  wheel,  as  he  earn’d  his  bread 
and  doom ; 

Death,  by  the  wan  shirtmaker,  plied  the  fingers  to  the  bone ; 

Death  rocked  the  infant’s  cradle,  and  with  opium  hushed  its  moan. 

152 


King  Cholera  s  Friends 


The  Metropolitan  Internments  Bill,  introduced  in  1850, 
was  a  much-needed  reform,  and  furnished  Punch  with  an 
occasion  for  free-spoken  denunciation  of  “King  Cholera’s 
friends,”  Boards  of  Guardians,  and  other  obstructives  who 
“laugh  to  scorn  doctors  and  drains,  and  uphold  the  great 


THE  POOR  CHILD’S  NURSE 


cause  of  dirt.”  His  method  of  dealing  with  the  offenders 
is  generally  direct :  sometimes  it  takes  the  form  of  extrava¬ 
gant  irony,  as  in  the  “account  of  my  travels  in  search  of 
self-government  :  — 

What  is  it  to  me  that  fever  is  never  absent  from  these  places — 
that  infants  do  not  rear,  and  men  die  before  their  time — that  sickness 
engenders  pauperism — that  filth  breeds  depression,  and  depression 
drives  to  drink?  What  do  you  mean  by  telling  me  that  cholera  slew 
in  Rotherhithe  its  205  victims  in  every  10,000,  in  St.  Olave’s  its  181, 

153 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  Eng/und 


in  St.  Saviour’s  its  153,  in  Lambeth  its  120,  while  in  the  Strand  it 
carried  off  only  35,  in  Kensington  33,  in  Marylebone  17,  and  in 
Hampstead  8,  out  of  the  same  number?  Still,  British  landlords  did 
what  they  liked  with  their  own,  and  self-government  is  unimpaired. 
The  satellites  and  slaves  of  an  encroaching  centralization  are  kept  at 
arm’s  length,  and  if  they  have  succeeded  in  putting  down  sewers, 
at  least  we  have  triumphed  in  not  laying  our  house-drains  into  ’em. 

It  is  with  pride,  therefore,  I  repeat,  that  whatever  may  be  the 
case  in  the  country  (where  I  regret  to  see  the  hateful  Public  Health 
Act  seems  to  be  extending  its  ravages),  in  London  we  are  still 
enjoying  the  enormous,  the  invaluable  privileges  of  self-government, 
and  that  if  Epidemic  Cholera  should  visit  us  again,  we  may  con¬ 
fidently  show  him  to  his  old  haunts  in  1832  and  1849,  and  so  convince 
him  that,  in  this  free  country,  he,  too,  is  at  liberty  “TO  DO  WHAT 
HE  LIKES  WITH  HIS  OWN.” 

Punch  naturally  applauded  the  Bill  brought  in  by  Sir  George 
Grey,  in  1856,  to  reform  the  Corporations  of  London,  but  would 


THE  END  OF  GOG  AND  MAGOG  ;  OR,  THINGS  VERY  BAD 

IN  THE  CITY 

154 


Londons  Vanished  Glories 


have  preferred  a  more  drastic  measure,  and  warned  the  unre¬ 
pentant  City  Fathers  of  the  dangers  of  refusing  to  accept  the 
liberal  terms  offered  them. 

Among  the  features  of  vanishing  and  now  vanished  London, 
the  Fleet  Prison  has  already  been  noticed.  It  passed  “unwept, 
unhonoured,  and  unsung,”  save  in  the  ironical  valediction  pro¬ 
nounced  by  Punch  on  the  occasion  of  the  sale  of  the  materials 
of  the  prison  in  1846.  Holywell  Street,  swept  away  by  recent 
improvements,"  was  still  reckoned  as  one  of  London’s  lions, 
though  a  dingy  one  at  best.  The  glories  of  Vauxhall  Gardens 
were  expiring,  and  the  Colosseum  in  Regent’s  Park,  which,  with 
its  Panorama  of  London,  statues,  works  of  dubious  art  and 
Swiss  scenery,  was  a  precursor  of  the  Earl’s  Court  Exhibitions, 
had  fallen  on  evil  days,  and  was  sold  in  1843  by  the  famous 
George  Robins,  the  “Cicero  of  auctioneers.”  For  the  splendour 
of  Astley’s  Circus  in  the  ’forties,  Punch  forms  a  useful  com¬ 
mentary  on  the  delightful  mock  ballads  of  Bon  Gaultier. 
Gomersal,  the  famous  equestrian  impersonator  of  Napoleon, 
was  going  strong  in  1844.  His  retirement  to  a  hostelry  at  Hull 
in  1849  is  attributed  by  Punch  to  disgust  at  the  failure  of  Im¬ 
perialism.  Widdecomb,  the  illustrious  ring-master,  and  the 
subject  of  many  of  Punch’s  pleasantries,  earned  the  distinction 
of  a  mention  by  Browning,  who  refers  to  him  as  resembling 
Tom  Moore,  with  his  “painted  cheeks  and  sham  moustache,” 
and  he  finds  a  niche  in  the  Pantheon  of  the  D.N.B.  Astley’s 
is  the  mere  shadow  of  a  name  to  the  present  generation,  and 
only  elderly  Londoners  can  recall  the  delights  of  the  Poly¬ 
technic  as  a  place  more  of  entertainment  than  instruction,  with 
the  tank  and  diving  bell  and  electrifying  apparatus,  dear  to 
mid-Victorian  schoolboys  in  their  Christmas  holidays.  These 
are  duly  chronicled  by  Punch  along  with  the  attractions  of 
Rosherville  Gardens,  then  presided  over  by  Baron  Nathan,  one 
of  the  irregular  impresario  peers  who  do  not  appear  in  “  De- 
brett,”  of  whom  the  last  representative  was  Lord  George  Sanger. 
Baron  Nathan  catered  for  a  mixed  audience,  but  as  a  director 
of  dances  he  appealed  to  a  fashionable  clientele.  When  Bur- 
nand  wrote  the  libretto  of  Cox  and  Box  in  1866,  Rosherville  was 
the  paradise  of  the  City  clerk,  witness  Cox’s  song  overleaf, 

155 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


My  aged  employer,  his  whole  physiognomy 
Shining  with  soap  like  a  star  in  astronomy, 

Said  “Mr.  Cox,  you’ll  oblige  me  and  honour  me 
If  you  will  take  this  as  your  holiday  !  ” 

Then  visions  of  Brighton  and  back  and  of  Rosherville — 
Feeling  the  rain  put  on  my  mackintosh  I  vill,  etc. 

Brighton  already  justified  its  title  of  “ London-on-Sea,”  and 
the  volume  of  excursion  traffic  had  begun  to  provoke  complaints 
from  the  residents  as  likely  to  impair  the  amenities  of  the  place. 
These  complaints  the  democratic  Punch  denounced  as  snob¬ 
bish;  and  he  speaks  of  Brighton  in  1841  as  the  home  of  half¬ 
pay  officers  with  dyed  whiskers.  Later  on,  however,  he  takes 
a  somewhat  different  view  in  his  realistic  pictures  of  the  Semitic 
invader^. 

The  Pantheon  in  Oxford  Street,  where  in  its  first  phase  as  a 
theatre  Miss  Stephens,  afterwards  Countess  of  Essex,  made  her 
debut  on  the  stage,  had  since  1834  been  reconstructed  as  a 
bazaar  and  picture  gallery.  Punch  describes  it  in  1842  as  a  Zoo 
and  National  Gallery  combined,  with  its  conservatory,  aviary, 
statues,  and  pictures.  It  was  a  pleasant  cut  for  idlers  in  wet 
weather  from  Oxford  Street  to  Marlborough  Street.  But  its 
glories  were  but  a  pale  reflex  of  the  days  when  the  building 
excited  Walpole’s  enthusiasm,  and  Gibbon  was  a  regular  at¬ 
tendant  of  its  “splendid  and  elegant”  masquerades.  After 
various  vicissitudes  the  Pantheon  was  closed  in  1867,  and  is 
now  a  wine  warehouse.  The  Lowther  Arcade,  from  the  Strand 
to  King  William  Street,  was  consecrated  to  the  sale  of  toys. 
The  present  writer  can  remember  it  in  the  ’seventies,  with  stout 
and  bearded  shopmen  blowing  on  tin  trumpets  and  spinning 
tops  for  the  allurement  of  passers  by.  It  has  disappeared,  but 
the  Burlington  Arcade  remains.  Under  the  heading  of  “The 
Haunts  of  the  Regent  Street  Idler,”  Punch  gives  a  detailed 
account  of  its  attractions  in  1842  :  — 

The  covered  passage  through  which  the  overland  journey  from 
Burlington  Gardens  to  Piccadilly  is  generally  performed  so  abounds 
in  objects  of  amusement  to  the  lounger  that,  in  point  of  cheap 
happiness,  it  becomes  a  perfect  Burlington  Arcadia.  He  can  pass  a 
whole  afternoon  therein,  with  the  additional  comfortable  feeling  of 

156 


Burlington  Arcadia 


security  from  any  unexpected  shower.  First  of  all  he  makes  a 
regular  inspection  of  every  article  in  Delaporte’s  windows — from 
Gavarni’s  Charivari  sketches,  which  have  been  there  as  far  as  the 
memory  of  the  oldest  lounger  can  reach,  to  the  droll  Diableries,  and 
the  Dames  et  Seigneurs  de  la  Cour  du  Moyen  Age,  who  rushed  into 
publicity  at  the  first  whisper  of  the  Queen’s  Fancy  Ball.  Then  he 
listens  to  the  dulcet  notes  of  an  accordion,  which  is  perpetually 
playing  in  this  favoured  thoroughfare,  whilst  he  saunters  on  to  the 
fancy  stationer’s,  and  criticizes  the  water-colour  albumified  views  of 
Venice  and  Constantinople,  all  neutral  tint  and  burnt  sienna ;  or 
falls  in  love  with  the  impassioned  head  of  La  Esmeralda,  and  regrets 
such  symmetrical  young  ladies  do  not  dance  about  the  streets  at  the 
present  day ;  his  attention  only  being  withdrawn  from  the  beautiful 
gipsy  by  two  portraits  of  mortal  angels  in  very  low  dresses,  one 
of  whom  is  asleep  at  one  corner  of  the  window,  and  the  second 
combing  her  hair  at  the  other.  He  peers  into  all  the  artificial  flower 
shops,  to  see  what  hidden  divinities  are  therein  concealed  by  the 
bowers  of  tinted  gauze  and  tinsel ;  and  having  admired  the  languish¬ 
ing  ladies  and  very  nice  gentlemen  in  the  hairdressers’  windows, 
finally  loses  himself  in  an  earthly  paradise  of  painted  snuff-boxes, 
parasols,  popular  music  and  perfumery,  together  with  certain  articles 
of  ladies’  dress,  like  dolls’  pillows  in  convulsions,  the  display  of 
which  has  always  struck  us  as  being  a  profane  revelation  of  the 
arcana  pertaining  to  the  toilet  of  a  beauty. 

Covent  Garden  Theatre,  as  we  know  it,  was  not  opened  till 
May,  1858.  Of  its  predecessors  on  the  same  site  two  were 
destroyed  by  fire,  one  in  1808,  and  the  next  in  May,  1856,  after 
a  somewhat  orgiastic  hal  masque  organized  by  Anderson,  “the 
Wizard  of  the  North,”  Gye’s  tenant  at  the  time.  This,  by  the 
way,  was  the  third  theatre  burned  down  during  Anderson’s 
engagements,  and  the  disaster  led  to  a  picture  in  Punch  re¬ 
presenting  Mario,  the  famous  tenor,  mourning  amid  the  ruins 
of  the  scenes  of  his  many  triumphs — an  ingenious  adaptation 
of  the  episode  of  Marius  sitting  as  a  refugee  amid  the  ruins  of 
Carthage.  Punch  was  no  lover  of  bals  masques,  reckoning 
them  among  the  things  which  they  manage  better  abroad.  Nor 
was  he  a  friendly  critic  of  Madame  Tussaud,  modestly  housed 
at  the  Bazaar  in  Baker  Street  until  the  erection  of  the  present 
building  in  1884.  Punch  owned  that  admission  to  her  show 
was  a  test  of  popularity,  but  he  condemned  the  Chamber  of 
Horrors  as  ministering  to  the  cult  of  monstrosity,  and  com- 

x57i 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


pared  Madame  Tussaud  in  1849 — the  year  before  her  death — 
to  the  witches  who  made  wax  models  of  those  whom  they 
wished  to  injure. 

Chelsea  buns  are  still  with  us,  though  it  is  declared  in 
London  Past  and  Present  that  the  tradition  of  making  them 


is  lost;  the  “Original  Bun  House,”  at  the  bottom  of  Jews’ 
Row,  was  taken  down  in  1839,  but  its  memories  linger  in  the 
early  volumes  of  Punch.  There  is  a  good  series  entitled  “The 
Gratuitous  Exhibitions  of  London,”  one  of  which,  “The  Happy 
Family,”  lasted  for  forty  years  later.  The  present  writer  well 
remembers  in  his  schoolboy  days  the  wire  safe  on  wheels, 
stationed  at  the  corner  of  Trafalgar  Square,  near  Hampton’s 
shop,  containing  cats,  mice,  pigeons,  rabbits,  and  small  birds, 
very  much  as  in  Punch’s  picture.  The  nearest  survival  is  the 
cage  of  fortune-telling  birds  one  sees  now  and  again.  A  charge 

158 


The  Dominion  of  Din 


of  twopence  was  made  for  admission  to  St.  Paul’s  Churchyard, 
and  this  was  a  non-gratuitous  exhibition  which  Punch  bitterly 
resented,  even  to  the  extent  of  comparing  it  with  Wombwell’s 
Menagerie.  The  occasional  raids  of  the  aristocracy  on  Cre- 
morne  Gardens — which  stood  a  little  west  of  Battersea  Bridge — 
have  been  described  elsewhere.  The  gardens,  which  competed 
with  Vauxhall  as  a  scene  for  dancing,  fireworks  and  various 
exhibitions — “The  Siege  of  Gibraltar”  was  pyrotechnically 
reproduced  in  1851 — were  not  closed  till  1877,  soon  after  which 
date  the  house,  built  by  the  Earl  of  Huntingdon,  and  occupied 
as  a  private  house  by  Lord  Cremorne  in  the  Regency,  was 
pulled  down  and  the  grounds  built  over. 

Punch  had  a  friendly  feeling  for  the  London  street  arab, 
whose  sayings  so  often  enliven  his  pages,  and  calls  him  the 
“small  olive-branch  of  the  great  unwashed.”  But  he  was 
somewhat  impatient  of  the  tyranny  of  the  tip-cat,  battledore 
and  shuttlecock,  hopscotch  and  all  street  games  which  im¬ 
perilled  the  safety  of  the  elderly  foot  passenger.  Professional 
mendicants  he  regarded  with  abhorrence,  and  waged  unceasing 
war  on  Italian  organ-grinders  as  an  insolent  and  irremovable 
nuisance,  as  well  as  on  German  bands  and  all  who  maintained 
the  dominion  of  unnecessary  din.  He  would  gladly  have  seen 
all  street-cries  abolished:  the  “elfin  note  of  the  milkman”  had 
no  charm  for  him.  Here  perhaps  the  sensitiveness  and  suffer¬ 
ings  of  John  Leech  were  responsible  for  his  antipathy.  Mark 
Lemon  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  M.  T.  Bass,  M.P.,  who  brought 
in  a  Bill  to  regulate  street  music,  in  which  he  traced  Leech’s 
fatal  illness  to  the  disturbance  of  his  nervous  system  by  “the 
continual  visitation  of  street  bands  and  organ-grinders.” 
Those  readers  who  take  an  interest  in  the  evolution  of  musical 
taste  may  be  interested  to  know  that  in  1856  the  popular  tunes 
on  the  street  organs  were  “The  Rat-catcher’s  Daughter,” 
“Annie  Laurie,”  the  serenade  from  Verdi’s  “Trovatore  ”  and 
“The  Red,  White  and  Blue,”  a  selection  admirably  repre¬ 
sentative  of  sport,  sentiment,  the  prevalent  Italianation  of 
opera,  and  patriotism. 

The  Zoological  Gardens  had  been  opened  in  1828  and  were 
already  a  most  popular  resort;  the  hippopotamus  at  one  time 

159 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  Engl  mid 


almost  rivalling  “General  ”  Tom  Thumb  as  the  most  run- 
after  celebrity.  “Good  David  Mitchell,”  who  was  secretary  to 
the  Zoological  Society  from  1847  to  1859,  was  a  prime  favourite 
with  Punch,  and  is  never  mentioned  without  a  friendly  word. 
But  of  all  officials  concerned  with  the  administration  of  London 


TASTE 

SHOP  Girl  (who  had  been  expected  to  procure  Tennyson’s  “  Miller’s  Daughter”): 
“No,  Miss!  We’ve  not  got  the  Miller’s,  but  here’s  the  ‘Ratcatcher’s  Daughter,’ 
just  published  1  ” 

none  stood  higher  in  his  esteem  than  Sir  Benjamin  Hall, 
M.P.  for  Marylebone  from  1837  to  1859,  when  he  was  created 
Lord  Llandovery,  President  of  the  Board  of  Health  in  1854, 
and  Chief  Commissioner  of  Works  from  1855  to  1858.  “Ben 
Hall’s”  services  in  adding  to  the  amenities  of  the  parks  and 
introducing  bands  on  Sundays  were  celebrated  by  Punch  in 
prose  and  verse.  It  was  he  who  brought  in  a  Bill  for  the 
sorely  needed  better  management  of  the  Metropolis  in  March, 

160 


Beadles ,  Broadsheets  and  Advertisements 


1855,  and  Punch  more  than  once  applauded  him  for  castigating 
the  follies  of  the  Central  Metropolitan  Board,  whose  vagaries 
in  suggesting  names  for  streets  roused  Punch’s  special  ire  in 

1856.  A  nomenclator  like  the  late  Sir  Laurence  Gomme,  who 
combined  official  authority  with  a  fine  historical  sense,  only 
emerges  once  in  a  century.  Among  the  minor  officials  of 
the  time  beadles  were  conspicuous.  Punch  devotes  a  special 
article  to  those  of  the  Burlington  and  Lowther  Arcades,  the 
Quadrant  and  the  British  Museum,  but  these  gorgeous  uni¬ 
formed  functionaries,  splendid  in  scarlet  and  gold,  are  now 
only  memories  of  the  elderly  or  the  aged.  Gone,  too,  are  the 
broadsheets,  “dying  speeches”  and  ballads  of  Catnach,  the 
Seven  Dials  bookseller;  gone  also  are  the  “mock  auctions” 
which  were  held  in  the  Strand  up  to  the  war.  London  had 
no  picture-palaces  in  the  ’forties  and  ’fifties,  but  there  was 
an  abundance  of  panoramas,  which  Punch  noted  as  a  reaction 
against  the  cult  of  dwarfs.  The  fogs  cannot  have  been  worse 
than  those  which  prevailed  for  nearly  a  week  one  winter  at 
the  close  of  the  ’nineties,  but  the  smoke  nuisance  was  perhaps 
more  acute  because  entirely  unregulated.  Punch  defended  the 
intermission  of  postal  deliveries  on  Sunday,  on  the  ground  that 
it  promoted  the  blessed  dullness  of  that  day,  and  here  at  least 
the  chronicler  has  no  change  to  record.  On  the  growth  of  the 
great  modern  art  of  advertising  Punch  is  a  most  instructive 
commentator.  As  early  as  December,  1842,  he  printed  an 
essay  on  its  theory  and  practice  in  which  the  following  passage 
occursT — 

The  Kentish  Herald  lately  contained  the  following  notice  : 
“Ranelagh  Gardens,  Margate — last  night  of  Mount  Vesuvius,  in 
consequence  of  an  engagement  with  the  Patagonians.”  This  is 
tragical  enough;  but  The  Times  outdoes  it  in  horror  by  informing 
us  that  “The  Nunhead  Cemetery  is  now  open  for  general  interment  ”  ; 
and  immediately  afterwards  comes  an  advertisement  of  “The 
London  General  Mourning  Warehouse,  Oxford  Street  ”  ;  and  then, 
to  crown  all,  Mr.  Simpson,  of  Long  Acre,  declares  himself  ready 
to  make  “Distresses  in  Town  and  Country,  so  as  to  give  general 
satisfaction.” 

In  1847  Punch  recurs  to  the  subject  in  a  spirit  foreshadow- 
L— 1  l6l 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


ing  the  activities  of  that  excellent  society  which  of  late  years  has 
striven  to  restrain  the  excesses  of  the  advertiser  :  — 

Advertisements  are  spreading  all  over  England — they  have  crept 
under  the  bridges — have  planted  themselves  right  in  the  middle  of 
the  Thames — have  usurped  the  greatest  thoroughfares — and  are  now 
just  on  the  point  of  invading  the  omnibuses.  Advertising  is  certainly 
tbe  great  vehicle  for  the  age.  Go  where  you  will,  you  are  stopped 
by  a  monster  cart  running  over  with  advertisements,  or  are  nearly 
knocked  down  by  an  advertising  house  put  upon  wheels,  which  calls 
upon  you,  when  too  late,  not  to  forget  “Number  One.”  These 
vehicles,  one  would  think,  were  more  than  enough  to  satisfy  the 
most  greedy  lover  of  advertisements,  but  it  seems  that  there  is  such 
an  extraordinary  run  for  them  that  omnibuses  are  to  be  lined  and 
stuffed  with  nothing  else. 

We  have  long  acquiesced  in  this  invasion  of  the  sanctity  of 
the  omnibus.  It  is  the  desecration  of  the  countryside  that  chiefly 
disgusts  the  fastidious  of  to-day. 


PART  II 


THE  SOCIAL  FABRIC 


THE  COURT 


AT  the  time  of  Queen  Victoria’s  Diamond  Jubilee  in  1897, 
Caran  d’Ache,  the  famous  French  artist — perhaps  the 
"““greatest  genius  in  his  peculiar  genre  that  our  age  has 
produced — published  a  wonderful  design  in  which  the  parallel 
histories  of  France  and  Great  Britain,  during  our  Queen’s 
reign,  were  summed  up  at  a  glance  with  masterly  insight. 
Great  Britain  was  represented  by  one  person  under  two  aspects  : 
Queen  Victoria  as  a  girl  and  as  an  old  woman;  France  by  a 
long  procession  of  figures  :  King,  Prince  President,  Emperor, 
and  the  series  of  Presidents  of  the  Republic.  The  stability  of 
England  and  the  fluctuations  of  France  could  not  have  been 
pictorially  symbolized  with  greater  point.  The  Victorian  age 
is  rightly  named,  for  Queen  Victoria  in  her  virtues,  her  pre¬ 
judices  and  limitations  was,  in  many  ways,  its  most  command¬ 
ing  figure,  and  the  personal  devotion  and  respect  she  inspired 
in  men  differing  so  widely  in  temperament  and  outlook  as 
Melbourne  and  O’Connell,  Peel  and  Russell,  Disraeli,  Lord 
Salisbury  and  Lord  Roberts,  to  mention  no  others,  counted  for 
much  in  securing  the  country  against  the  violent  upheavals 
from  which  our  nearest  neighbour  suffered.  Yet,  when  the  wave 
of  sentiment  created  by  the  romantic  conditions  under  which  a 
girl  of  eighteen  was  summoned  to  wear  a  crown  had  died  down, 
the  light  that  beat  upon  the  throne  was  far  from  genial;  it  was 
often  fierce.  The  controversy  over  the  Ladies  of  the  Bed¬ 
chamber  threatened  to  drag  the  Crown  into  the  arena  of  party 
politics.  The  contention  of  the  Tories  was,  in  the  main,  sound 
and  constitutional — that  these  appointments  should  not  be  made 
or  maintained  in  such  a  way  as  to  expose  the  Sovereign  to 
influences  hostile  to  the  Government  in  power;  and  the  Queen 
cannot  be  acquitted  of  a  certain  obstinacy  in  the  assertion  of 

165 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


her  rights.  But  the  cry  that  the  Tories  were  forcing  her  hand 
was  vigorously  taken  up,  and  strange  cross  currents  of  feeling 
were  developed,  O’Connell’s  passionate  outburst  of  loyalty  be¬ 
ing  the  strangest  of  all.  It  was  one  of  the  ironies  of  circumstance 
that,  in  the  early  years  of  her  reign,  the  Queen’s  relations  with 
Whig  Ministers— always  excepting  Lord  Palmerston — were 
far  more  cordial  than  with  the  Tories.  Yet  this  was  no  guaran¬ 
tee  for  the  popularity  of  the  Court,  and  only  those  who  are 
familiar  with  the  history  of  the  time  can  appreciate  how  un¬ 
popular  it  was.  The  middle-class  element  were  not  enamoured 
of  the  Whigs,  but  whatever  they  thought  of  the  influence 
exerted  by  Lord  Melbourne  as  the  Queen’s  Mentor,  they  were 
not  prepared  to  recognize  any  improvement  when,  on  his  re¬ 
tirement,  the  post  was  informally,  but  none  the  less  effectually, 
filled  by  a  German  prince.  The  Queen’s  marriage  was  one  of 
affection  rather  than  policy,  and  Prince  Albert  had  many  ex¬ 
cellent  qualities.  He  was  a  highly  educated,  in  some  ways 
even  a  learned  man ;  he  was  industrious,  and  his  private 
character  was  without  stain.  It  was  not  in  human  nature  to 
expect  that  he  should  entirely  efface  himself  in  affairs  of  State; 
but  he  played  the  game  better  than  he  was  given  credit  for,  and 
on  at  least  one  occasion  his  intervention  was  quite  contrary  to 
that  ascribed  to  him.  At  the  same  time  he  was  lacking  in 
charm  and  geniality;  his  manner  was  stiff,  his  conversation 
academic  and  occasionally  gauche.  His  notions  of  sport  were 
not  those  of  an  English  sportsman,  and  he  had  a  passion  for 
devising  new  military  uniforms.  To  put  it  bluntly,  he  was  a 
foreigner,  and  the  chief  ground  of  the  unpopularity  of  the  Court 
was  that  it  gave  an  unfair  preference  to  everything  foreign — 
language,  art,  music,  letters — and  consistently  declined  to  en¬ 
courage  native  talent.  Satiric  references  to  the  royal  patron¬ 
age  of  foreigners  begin  in  Punch’s  first  volume.  “Ride-a-cock 
horse  ”  is  turned  into  a  florid  Italian  cavatina,  and  the  words 
translated  into  Italian — “Su  Gallo-Cavallo  a  Banburi  Croce” — 
for  the  benefit  of  the  nurse  of  the  Princess  Royal,  Mrs.  Ratsey, 
referred  to  as  “a  lady  equally  anxious  with  ourselves  to  instil 
into  the  infant  mind  an  utter  contempt  for  anything  English.” 
This  sets  the  keynote  to  a  series  of  complaints  which 

1 66 


Ultra-Loyalty  Burlesqued 


re-echo  over  many  years.  For  the  moment  we  may  turn  to 
Punch’s  extraordinarily  frank  comments,  cast  in  the  form 
of  a  burlesque  of  the  ultra-loyal  press,  on  the  rapid  growth 
of  the  royal  nursery,  a  propos  of  the  birth  of  the  Prince  of 
Wales  :  — 

THE  LORD  MAYOR  AND  THE  QUEEN 
By  the  Correspondent  of  the  Observer 

The  interesting-  condition  of  Her  Majesty  is  a  source  of  the 
most  agonizing  suspense  to  the  Lord  Mayors  of  London  and  Dublin, 
who,  if  a  Prince  of  Wales  is  not  born  before  their  period  of  office 
expires,  will  lose  the  chance  of  being  created  baronets. 

According  to  rumour,  the  baby — we  beg  pardon,  the  scion  of  the 
House  of  Brunswick — was  to  have  been  born — we  must  apologize 
again,  we  should  say  was  to  have  been  added,  to  the  illustrious 
stock  of  the  reigning  family  of  Great  Britain — some  day  last  month, 
and  of  course  the  present  Lord  Mayors  had  comfortably  made  up 
their  minds  that  they  should  be  entitled  to  the  dignity  it  is  cus¬ 
tomary  to  confer  on  such  occasions  as  that  which  the  nation  now 
ardently  anticipates.  But  here  we  are  at  the  beginning  of  November, 
and  no  Prince  of  Wales.  We  have  reason  to  know  that  the  Lord 
Mayor  of  London  has  not  slept  a  wink  since  Saturday,  and  his  lady 
has  not  smiled,  according  to  an  authority  on  which  we  are  accus¬ 
tomed  to  rely,  since  Thursday  fortnight.  Some  say  it  is  done  on 
purpose,  because  the  present  official  is  a  Tory;  and  others  insinuate 
that  the  Prince  of  Wales  is  postponed  in  order  that  there  may  be 
an  opportunity  of  making  Daniel  O’Connell  a  baronet.  Others 
suggest  that  there  will  be  twins  presented  to  the  nation,  one 
on  the  night  of  November  8,  the  other  on  the  morning  of  the  9th, 
so  as  to  conciliate  both  parties ;  but  we  are  not  disposed  at  present 
to  pronounce  a  decided  opinion  on  this  part  of  the  question.  We 
know  that  politics  have  been  carried  most  indelicately  into  the  very 
heart  of  the  Royal  Household.1  But  we  hope,  for  the  honour  of 
all  parties,  that  the  confinement  of  the  Queen  is  not  to  be  made  a 
matter  of  political  arrangement. 

This  is  followed  up  in  the  next  issue  by  an  equally  audacious 
comment  from  the  same  fictitious  correspondent :  — 

1  The  imbroglio  of  the  Ladies  of  the  Bedchamber  had  been  settled  in  1840. 
But  Scribe’s  V erre  d'Eau,  under  the  title  of  The  Maid  of  Honour,  with  the 
real  incident  turned  into  farce,  had  been  adapted  to  the  English  stage  and 
produced  at  the  Adelphi. 


167 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  PRINCE  OF  WALES 
(By  the  Observer’s  own  Correspondent) 

It  will  be  seen  that  we  were  not  premature  in  announcing  the 
probability  of  the  birth  of  a  Prince  of  Wales;  and  though  it  was 
impossible  that  anyone  should  be  able  to  speak  with  certainty,  our 
positive  tone  upon  the  occasion  serves  to  show  the  exclusive  nature 
of  all  our  intelligence.  We  are  enabled  now  to  state  that  the 
Prince  will  immediately  take,  indeed  he  has  already  taken,  the  title 
of  the  Prince  of  Wales,  which  it  is  generally  understood  he  will 
enjoy — at  least  if  a  child  so  young  can  be  said  to  enjoy  anything  of 
the  kind — until  an  event  shall  happen  which  we  hope  will  be 
postponed  for  a  very  protracted  period.  The  Prince  of  Wales, 
should  he  survive  his  mother,  will  ascend  the  throne;  but  whether 
he  will  be  George  the  Fifth,  Albert  the  First,  Henry  the  Ninth, 
Charles  the  Third,  or  Anything  the  Nothingth,  depends  upon  cir¬ 
cumstances  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  allude  to  at  present,  nor  do 
we  think  we  shall  be  enabled  to  do  so  in  a  second  edition. 

Our  suggestion  last  week,  that  the  royal  birth  should  take 
place  on  Lord  Mayor’s  Day,  has,  we  are  happy  to  see,  been  partially 
attended  to  ;  but  we  regret  that  the  whole  hog  has  not  been  gone, 
by  twins  having  been  presented  to  the  anxious  nation,  so  that  there 
might  have  been  a  baronetcy  each  for  the  outgoing  and  incoming 
Lord  Mayors  of  London  and  Dublin. 

This  vein  is  further  developed  in  burlesque  bulletins  of  the 
progress  of  the  infant  Prince.  Punch’s  serious  views  as  to  the 
Prince’s  future  are  to  be  found  in  his  “Paean  to  the  Princelet” 
and  its  sequel,  inspired  by  the  Royal  Christening  in  February, 
1842  : — 

PUNCH  AND  THE  PRINCELET 
*  *  *  * 

The  little  Prince  must  love  the  poor, 

And  he  will  heed  the  cry 
Of  the  pauper  mother,  when  she  finds 
Her  infant’s  fountains  dry. 

He’ll  fill  the  cruse,  and  bruise  the  ear, 

To  make  those  founts  o’erflow, 

For  they  have  vow’d  our  little  Prince 
No  “vanities”  shall  know. 

And  we  will  rattle  our  little  bell, 

And  laugh,  and  dance,  and  sing  as  well — 

Roo-too-tooit  !  Shallaballa  ! 

Life  to  the  Prince  !  Fallallalla  ! 

168 


A  ROYAL  NURSERY  RHYME  FOR  1860  j. 


“  There  was  a  Royal  Lady  who  lived  in  a  shoe, 

She  had  so  many  children  she  didn't  know  what  to  do.” 


169 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


And  death’s  dark  bones  will  then  become 
Like  iv’ry  pure  and  white  ! 

His  blood-dyed  robe  will  moulder  off, 

And  his  garments  be  as  light ; 

For  man  will  slaughter  man  no  more 
For  wrong  begot  by  wrongs, 

For  our  little  Prince  will  say — “To  me 
Nor  life  nor  death  belongs.” 

So  we  will  rattle  our  little  bell, 

And  laugh,  and  dance,  and  sing  as  well — 

Roo-too-tooit  !  Shallaballa  ! 

Life  to  the  Prince  !  Fallallalla  ! 

But  while  taking  the  Prince’s  future  very  seriously,  Punch 
could  not  emulate  those  writers  in  the  Press  who,  with  goose- 
quill  in  hand,  could  not  approach  the  ordinary  trials  from  which 
even  Royal  infants  are  not  exempt,  save  on  their  knees:  — 

It  has  been  announced  to  the  public,  through  the  medium  of  the 
Press,  that  a  most  important  epoch  has  arrived  in  the  life  of  the 
Prince  of  Wales.  It  is  a  strange  fact,  that  this  “important  epoch  ” 
has  not  been  noted  in  the  biography  of  any  previous  Prince  of 
Wales;  for  we  look  in  vain  through  the  pages  of  Hume  and 
Smollett,  Rapin,  Lingard,  Miss  Julia  Corner,  and  indeed  every 
other  corner  within  our  reach,  without  being  able  to  ascertain 
when  Edward  the  Black  Prince  was  driven  from  the  breast  to  the 
bottle.  The  Heir  Apparent  to  the  English  throne  has,  we  are  told, 
been  lately  subjected  to  this  frightful  vicissitude;  and  though  his 
Royal  Highness  is  said  to  have  borne  it  tolerably  well,  it  will 
appear  that  while  he  took  to  the  pap-spoon  with  princely  fortitude, 
there  was  something  of  the  infant  perceptible  in  his  mode  of  first 
receiving  it. 

When  another  Princess  was  born  in  1843,  we  read  that 
“there  were  some  apprehensions  that  the  nasal  organ  of  the 
Pleir  Apparent  might  be  affected  by  the  birth  of  a  younger 
sister,  but  we  are  happy  to  say  that  there  are  no  symptoms  of 
a  derangement  of  the  Prince’s  proboscis  at  present,”  also  that 
Donizetti  had  been  requested  to  arrange  a  series  of  concertos 
for  the  penny  trumpet,  and  had  sent  to  the  Prince  one  on  the 
noble  theme  of  “This  little  pig  w7ent  to  market”  to  the  Italian 
words :  — 


170 


Prince  Albert  as  Tailor 


Questo  piccolo  porco 
E  andato  al  mercato. 

Questo  piccolo  porco 
E  a  casa  restate. 

Questo  piccolo  porco 

Ha  avuto  del  rosbief  per  pranza. 

Questo  piccolo  porco 

Niente  ebbe  nel  sua  stanza. 

These  familiar  jocularities,  redeemed  by  their  general  good 
humour  from  the  charge  of  disrespect,  are  harmless  compared 
with  the  sustained  campaign  of  ridicule  directed  against  Prince 
Albert  as  tailor  and  sportsman.  German  sovereigns  and  princes 
have  always  been  great  on  uniforms,  and  Prince  Albert  un¬ 
doubtedly  suffered  severely  from  this  hereditary  failing.  A 
concise  biography  in  the  Almanack  for  1842  states  that  he  was 
born  on  August  26,  1819,  and  afterwards  invented  “a  shocking 
bad  hat  for  the  British  Infantry,  but  England  refused  to  put 
her  Foot  in  it.”  From  this  time  onward  the  attacks  are  constant 
and  malicious.  The  Prince’s  bell-shaped  hat  repeatedly  figures 
in  cartoons.  He  “bresents  his  gompliments  ”  to  Herzog  Jenkins 
(of  the  Morning  Post),  for  whom  he  has  “gomposed  a  dugal 
goronet.” 

In  the  following  year  there  is  a  cartoon  representing 
the  Prince  in  his  sartorial  studio  surrounded  by  designs 
and  models;  the  following  comment  is  associated  with  the 
cartoon  : — 

Ever  since  the  accession  of  Prince  Albert  to  the  Royal  Hus- 
bandship  of  these  realms,  he  has  devoted  the  energies  of  his  mind 
and  the  ingenuity  of  his  hands  to  the  manufacture  of  infantry  caps, 
cavalry  trousers,  and  regulation  sabretaches.  One  of  his  first 
measures  was  to  transmogrify  the  pantaloons  of  the  Eleventh 
Hussars;  and  as  the  regiment  alluded  to  is  Prince  Albert’s  Own, 
His  Royal  Highness  may  do  as  he  likes  with  his  own,  and  no 
one  could  complain  of  his  bedizening  the  legs  of  the  unfortunate 
Eleventh  with  scarlet  cloth  and  gold  door-leather.  When,  how¬ 
ever,  the  Prince,  throwing  the  whole  of  his  energies  into  a  hat, 
proposed  to  encase  the  heads  of  the  British  soldiery  in  a  machine 
which  seemed  a  decided  cross  between  a  muff,  a  coal  scuttle,  and 
a  slop  pail,  then  Punch  was  compelled  to  interfere,  for  the  honour 

171 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


of  the  English  army.  The  result  has  been  that  the  head-gear  has 
been  summarily  withdrawn  by  an  order  from  the  War  Office,  and 
the  manufacture  of  more  of  the  Albert  hat  has  been  absolutely 
prohibited. 


THE  TAILOR’S  GOOSE— THE  TERROR  OF  THE  ARMY 

The  campaign  reached  its  height  in  1845  when  Punch  was 
given  an  irresistible  opportunity  on  the  occasion  of  the  Prince 
being  entertained  by  the  Merchant  Tailors.  The  Prince,  Punch 
averred,  was  a  born  tailor,  the  Prince  of  Tailors,  the  true 
British  tailor.  He  sought  to  make  the  British  Army  invincible 
by  rendering  them  so  comical  that,  by  coming  rapidly  on  the 
enemy,  they  might  convulse  him  with  laughter  and  paralyse  his 
defence.  He  had  fraternized  with  the  Goose  of  Great  Britain, 
and  might  sit  cross-legged  in  the  eyes  of  posterity.  After  this 

172 


Prince  Albert  as  Sportsman 


outburst  of  derision  Punch  gave  the  Prince  a  rest  as  tailor,  but 
took  up  the  running — or  baiting — with  renewed  energy  against 
his  sportmanship .  Punch,  it  may  be  noted,  was  not  an  un¬ 
mitigated  admirer  of  field  sports;  he  denounced  otter  hunting  as 
cruel,  and  more  than  once  protested  against  officers  and  others 
who  rode  their  horses  to  death  for  a  wager.  It  was  part  of  the 
humanitarianism  which  impelled  him  to  support  the  abolition 
of  capital  punishment,  though  here  his  argument  was  based  on 
the  view  that  death  was  a  release  for  the  murderer,  who  was 
more  effectually  punished  by  being  kept  in  lifelong  penance  for 
his  crime.  Punch  was  never  an  enemy  of  fox  hunting.  Doubt¬ 
less  the  influence  of  Leech  counted  for  something.  But  the 
organized  slaughter  of  game  filled  him  with  disgust,  and  the 
exploits  of  the  Prince  in  the  Highlands  in  the  autumn  of  1842 
prompted  the  first  of  many  tirades. 

The  pheasant  battues  at  Drayton,  when  the  Queen  and 
Prince  Albert  were  the  guests  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  are  treated  in 
the  same  spirit,  and  the  Ballad  of  Windsor  Chase,  with  its 
grotesque  illustration  of  fat  beagles  and  obese  hares,  the  Prince 
on  horseback,  and  the  Queen  in  her  pony  phaeton,  carries  on 
the  satire  in  this  fashion  :  — 

Six  hares  alive  were  taken  out 
Each  in  its  canvas  sack ; 

And  five  as  dead  as  mutton,  in 
The  same  were  carried  back. 

The  battue  of  hares  at  Stowe  during  the  Prince’s  visit  to 
the  Duke  of  Buckingham  in  January,  1845,  is  the  subject  of 
another  derisive  ballad  modelled  on  John  Gilpin,  and  of  a  car¬ 
toon  showing  the  Prince  shooting  down  the  tame  quarry  point- 
blank  from  an  easy  chair.  The  grand  climax  to  this  raillery, 
however,  was  reached  during  the  Royal  visit  to  Germany  in 
September,  when  the  stag  hunt  at  Gotha  was  scarified  with 
pen  and  pencil.  In  two  parallel  cartoons  of  “Court 
Pastimes  ”  are  contrasted  the  bear-baiting  under  Elizabeth  with 
the  butchery  of  stags  under  Victoria;  and  the  hand  of 
Thackeray  is  unmistakable  in  the  “Sonnick,  sejested  by  Prince 

H3 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


Halbert  gratiously  killing  the  Staggs  at  Sacks-Cobug- 
Gothy  ”  :  — 


Some  forty  Ed  of  sleak  and  hantlered  dear 
In  Cobug  (where  such  hanimmles  abound) 


ELIZABETH 


Were  shot,  as  by  the  nusepapers  I  hear, 

By  Halbert  Usband  of  the  British  Crownd. 
Britannia’s  Queen  let  fall  the  purly  tear; 

Seeing  them  butchered  in  their  silvn  prisns ; 
Igspecially,  when  the  keepers,  standing  round, 
Came  up  and  cut  their  pretty  hinnocent  whizns. 

Suppose,  instead  of  this  pore  Germing  sport, 

This  Saxn  wenison  which  he  shoots  and  baggs, 

174 


Stag  Slaughter  at  Gotha 


Our  Prins  should  take  a  turn  in  Capel  Court 
And  make  a  massyker  of  English  Staggs.1 
Pore  Staggs  of  Hengland  !  Were  the  Untsman  at  you, 

What  avoe  he  would  make  and  what  a  trimenjus  battu  ! 

Jeams. 


VICTORIA 


Even  more  lacerating  is  the  use  made  in  the  same  number 
of  the  comment  of  a  loyal  eye-witness  quoted  by  the  Standard 

TEARS  AT  GOTHA 

The  Standard  gives  the  following  extract  of  a  letter  from  Gotha 
to  a  gentleman  in  London  : — - 

“This  (the  deer  killing)  was  very  shocking.  The  Queen  wept. 
»  In  reference  to  the  then  prevalent  mania  for  railway  speculation. 

175 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


1  saw 1  large  tears  in  her  eyes:  and  Her  Majesty  tells  me  that  she 
with  difficulty  kept  the  chair  during  what  followed.  When  the 
Queen  saw  the  otter  hunt  in  Scotland,  the  pity  that  she  naturally 
felt  at  the  death  of  the  animal  was  counterbalanced  by  a  knowledge 
of  his  propensities,  so  that  it  is  almost  as  meritorious  to  destroy 
an  otter  as  it  is  a  snake;  but  this  was  a  totally  different  case;  nor 
is  Her  Majesty  yet  recovered.  For  the  Prince,  the  deer  were  too 
numerous,  and  must  be  killed.  This  was  the  German  method; 
and  no  doubt  the  reigning  Duke  will  distribute  them  to  his  people, 
who  will  thank  Prince  Albert  for  providing  them  venison.” 

This  incident  marked  the  high-water  level  of  Punch’s  anti- 
Albertianism — at  any  rate,  in  the  domain  of  sport;  we  find  an 
address  of  condolence  to  the  Prince  on  the  conclusion  of  the 
shooting  season  a  year  and  a  half  later,  but,  in  the  main,  the 
criticisms  of  the  Royal  Consort  henceforth  are  founded  on  other 
grounds  of  dissatisfaction.  What  infuriated  Punch  even  more 
than  the  ineptitudes  of  the  Court  was  the  fulsome  adulation  of 
the  Lickspittle-offs  of  the  Press,  who  were  prepared,  not  only  to 
defend,  but  to  eulogize  them.  “The  amount  of  good  that 
Royalty  can  effect  in  this  country  is  astonishing,”  Punch  frankly 
admits,  while  caustically  adding :  “only  less  astonishing 
than  that  which  it  has  yet  to  do.”  But  between  a  generous 
acknowledgment  of  what  could  be  done  by  royal  example  (as, 
for  instance,  its  discouragement  of  gambling)  and  the  “in¬ 
sanity  of  loyalty,”  there  was  an  immense  gulf,  and  Punch  was 
never  weary  of  gibbeting  those  writers  in  and  out  of  the  Press 
who  thought  they  “could  best  oppose  the  questioning  spirit 
of  the  time — questioning,  as  it  does,  the  ‘  divinity  ’  that  hedges 
the  throne — by  adopting  the  worse  than  foolish  adulation  of  a 
bygone  age.”  Assuredly,  the  absolute  reductio  ad  absurdum 
of  this  courtiership  was  reached  when  the  Queen  was  extolled 
for  behaving  as  any  reasonable  woman  would  :  — 

The  excessively  loyal  man  has  the  ugliest  manner  of  paying  a 
compliment.  He  evidently  takes  his  king  or  queen  as  a  carved 
log  dropped  from  the  skies,  or  he  would  not  marvel  as  he  does  when 
the  aforesaid  image  shows  any  touch  of  life  or  human  sympathy. 
If  his  idol  perform  the  commonest  act  of  social  courtesy,  he  roars — 
“what  condescension  !  ”  If  it  display  the  influence  of  affections, 

176 


THE  MOMENTOUS  QUESTION 

“Tell  me,  oh  tell  me,  dearest  Albert,  have  you  any  Railw  ey 
Shares  ?  ’ 


M— 1 


177 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


he  screams — “a  miracle!”  Her  Majesty,  on  her  arrival  at 
Windsor  from  Scotland,  has  her  babies  immediately  brought  to 
her:  whereupon,  says  The  Atlas — ‘‘The  woman  and  the  mother 
for  a  moment  proclaimed  the  supremacy  of  nature  over  the  etiquette 
of  a  court,  and  the  splendour  of  a  diadem!  ” 

What  very  ill-breeding  on  the  part  of  “nature”- — but  then,  we 
presume,  she  is  such  a  stranger  at  courts  !  Was  there  no  Gold 
Stick  in  Waiting  to  show  the  baggage  to  the  door? 

The  same  offender  is  brought  to  book  in  the  following  issue 
for  deprecating  royal  excursions  by  railway  : — 

The  Atlas  thus  sermonizes  upon  Royalty  “by  the  rail  ”  : — 

“We  are  aware  that  every  precaution  is  taken  by  the  directors 
and  managers  of  the  Great  Western  Railway,  when  Her  Majesty 
makes  use  of  a  special  train,  and  we  are  not  less  acquainted  with 
the  courage  and  absence  of  all  fear  from  the  mind  of  the  Queen. 
But  a  long  regency  in  this  country  would  be  so  fearful  and  tre¬ 
mendous  an  evil,  that  we  cannot  but  desire,  in  common  with  many 
others,  that  these  royal  railway  excursions  should  be,  if  possible, 
either  wholly  abandoned  or  only  occasionally  resorted  to.” 

There  is  danger  by  the  railway;  and  therefore,  says  The  Atlas, 
the  Queen  should  be  only  “occasionally”  exposed  to  it.  Say  the 
chances  against  accident  are  as  nineteen  to  twenty,  shall  the  Queen 
“take  a  chance”?  “Yes,”  says  loyalty,  “the  Queen  may  occa¬ 
sionally  take  a  chance  !  ” 

Punch,  as  the  accompanying  cartoon  shows,  refused  to  take 
a  serious  view  of  railways  where  Royalty  was  concerned,  and 
went  to  the  length  of  maliciously  insinuating  that  Prince  Albert, 
wearying  of  his  rose-leaf  fetters,  had  been  indulging  in  a 
“flutter”  on  the  Stock  Exchange. 

Criticism  of  the  Court  on  the  one  hand  and  obsequious 
toadyism  on  the  other  were  much  more  pronounced  eighty  years 
ago.  The  later  vice  is  well  rebuked  in  the  fictitious  Royal  Pro¬ 
clamation  issued  in  connexion  with  the  Queen’s  visit  to  Scot¬ 
land  in  the  autumn  of  1844.  It  will  be  noticed  that  here,  as  on 
so  many  occasions,  Punch  adopted  the  device  of  assuming 
that  the  exalted  personages  adulated  resented  the  adulation  :  — 

Her  Majesty  has  just  issued  a  Proclamation,  of  which  Punch 
has  been  favoured  with  an  early  copy. 

’  178 


Sycophancy  Rebuked 


WHEREAS,  on  each  and  every  of  Our  Royal  Movements,  it 
has  been,  and  is  the  custom  of  sundry  weakly-disposed  persons 
known  as  “our  own  correspondents,”  “our  private  correspondents,” 
and  others,  to  write,  and  cause  to  be  printed,  absurd  and  foolish 
language,  touching  Ourself,  Our  Royal  Consort,  and  Beloved  Babies 
-—it  is  Our  Will  and  Pleasure  that  such  foolish  practices  (tending 
as  they  really  do  to  bring  Royalty  into  contempt)  shall  be  dis¬ 
continued  ;  and  that  from  henceforth,  all  vain,  silly,  and  sycophantic 
verbiage  shall  cease,  and  good,  straightforward,  simple  English  be 
used  in  all  descriptions  of  all  progresses  made  by  Ourself,  our  Royal 
Consort,  and  Our  Dearly  Beloved  Children.  And  FURTHER¬ 
MORE,  it  shall  be  permitted  to  Our  Royal  Self  to  wear  a  white 
shawl,  or  a  black  shawl,  without  any  idle  talk  being  passed  upon 
the  same.  AND  FURTHER,  Our  Beloved  Consort  shall,  when¬ 
ever  it  shall  so  please  him,  “change  his  round  hat  for  a  naval  cap 
with  a  gold  band,”  witho/ut  calling  for  the  special  notice  of  the 
Newspapers,  AND  FURTHER,  That  Our  Beloved  Child,  the 
Princess  Royal,  shall  be  permitted  to  walk  “hand  in  hand  ”  with 
her  Royal  Father,  without  exciting  such  marked  demonstrations 
of  wonderment  at  the  familiarity,  as  have  been  made  known  to 
Me  by  the  public  Press. 

BE  IT  KNOWN,  That  the  Queen  of  England  is  not  the  Grand 
Lama;  and  FURTHER  BE  IT  REMEMBERED  that  Englishmen 
should  not  emulate  the  vain  idolatry  of  speech  familiar  in  the 
mouths  of  Eastern  bondmen.  VICTORIA  REGINA. 

Given  at  Blair  Athol, 

September  16,  1844. 

In  this  context  should  be  noted  the  constant  criticisms  of 
the  Court  Circular — the  ironical  suggestions  that  it  should  be 
published  in  French  or  Italian,1  and  the  castigation,  under  the 
heading  “  Genteel  Christianity,”  of  the  announcement  of  the 
confirmation  of  the  “juvenile  nobility  and  gentry  ”  by  the  Bishop 
of  London  in  the  Chapel  Royal,  St.  James’s. 

Five  years  later  we  come  across  a  truly  delightful  suggestion, 
prompted  by  the  vacancy  in  the  Laureateship,  for  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  the  new  occupant  of  the  post :  — 

....  The  chief  difficulty  we  see  about  the  office,  is  the  fact 
of  there  being  nothing  to  do  in  it.  The  virtues  of  our  Queen  are 

*  .  .  .  .  “Buckingham  Palace,  where,  it  is  said,  if  a  person  puts  a  question 
in  English  he  is  asked  in  German  or  French  what  he  means.” 

179 


Mr.  Punch  s  PI i story  of  Modern  England 


of  too  matter-of-fact  a  sort,  and  of  too  everyday  occurrence,  to 
be  the  subject  of  mere  holiday  odes,  or,  indeed,  of  fiction  in  any 
shape.  If  any  duties  are  to  be  attached  to  the  Laureateship,  we 
would  propose  that  they  should  consist  of  the  task  of  giving  a 
poetical  turn  to  that  otherwise  very  dull  and  uninteresting  affair, 
the  Court  Circular,  which  fills  the  somewhat  contemptible  duty  of 
Paul  Pry  in  constant  attendance  on  what  ought  to  be  the  domestic 
privacy  of  royalty.  As  an  illustration  of  what  we  mean,  we  give 
the  following  specimen  : — 

This  morning  at  an  early  hour, 

In  Osborne’s  peaceful  grounds, 

The  Queen  and  Prince — ’spite  of  a  shower — 

Took  their  accustomed  rounds. 

With  them,  to  bear  them  company, 

Prince  Leiningen  he  went, 

And  with  the  other  royal  three, 

The  Duchess,  eke,  of  Kent. 

His  Royal  Highness  Prince  of  Wales 
Went  forth  to  take  the  air  ; 

The  Princess  Royal,  too,  ne’er  fails 
His  exercise  to  share. 

On  the  young  members  of  the  flock 
Was  tenderest  care  bestowed, 

For  two  long  hours  by  the  clock 
They  walked — they  ran — they  rode. 

Calmly  away  the  hours  wear 
In  Osborne’s  tranquil  shade, 

And  to  the  dinner-party  there 
Was  no  addition  made. 

Judge-Advocate  Sir  D.  Dundas 
Having  returned  to  town, 

The  Royal  family  circle  has 
Settled  serenely  down. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  assume  that  Punch’s  ridicule  assisted 
in  eliminating  some,  at  least,  of  these  excrescences  on  the 
official  record  of  life  at  Court. 

We  may  pass  over  the  chaff  of  Prince  Albert  as  a  farmer, 
and  of  his  prize  pigs  and  oxen.  The  bestowal  of  the  D.C.L. 
degree  at  Cambridge  in  October,  1843,  is  treated  with  acidulated 

180 


The  Prince  of  Bricklayers 


satire,  and  in  his  imaginary  speech  in  dog-latin  the  Prince  pre¬ 
sents  the  University  with  a  new  academic  cap  ( novus  pileus 
academicus )  of  his  own  designing.  A  month  later  the  Prince’s 
gratuitous  distribution,  through  the  clergy,  of  Professor  Buck- 
land’s  pamphlet  on  the  treatment  of  the  potato — on  the  eve 
of  the  Irish  famine — is  described  as  a  mockery  to  hungry  people, 
“but  then  Princes  are  such  wags,”  adds  Punch.  The  much- 
canvassed  appointment  of  the  Prince  as  Chancellor  of  Cam¬ 
bridge  University  in  1847  led  to  sardonic  comment :  — 

Nothing  in  England  has  been  thought  too  good  for  the  members 
of  this  happy  family ;  but  really  it  is  rather  too  humiliating  when  we 
begin  to  express  our  doubts  whether  we  can  find  anything,  among 
the  most  venerable  of  our  institutions,  good  enough  to  place  at 
the  feet  of  a  Prince  of  Saxe-Gotha. 

But  though  the  compliment  is  left-handed,  there  are  symp¬ 
toms  of  a  friendlier  tone  in  the  parallel  between  Prince  Hal 
(Henry  V)  and  Prince  “Al.”  Punch,  furthermore,  congratu¬ 
lates  the  Prince  on  giving  up  the  hat-business,  interesting  him¬ 
self  in  the  welfare  of  the  working  classes,  and  contributing  by 
his  speeches  and  subscriptions  to  the  advancement  of  social  re¬ 
form.  A  year  later  he  is  saluted  as  the  Prince  of  Bricklayers  :  — 

His  Royal  Highness  is  now  always  laying  the  foundation  stone 
of  some  charitable  institution  or  other.  .  .  .  The  services  of  Her 
Majesty’s  Consort  ought  to  be  duly  requited,  and  Punch,  in  order 
to  reward  him  in  kind,  hereby  spreads  the  mortar  of  approbation  with 
the  trowel  of  sincerity,  upon  a  Prince  who  really  appears  to  be 
coming  out  like  a  regular  brick. 

But,  as  we  have  noted  elsewhere,  it  was  the  Exhibition  of 
1851  which,  more  than  anything  else,  tended  to  enhance  the 
Prince’s  repute  and  popularity.  It  was  a  great  and  fruitful 
idea — and  the  Prince  was  its  only  begetter.  The  speech  of 
the  Prince  Consort  in  explaining  the  significance  of  the 
Exhibition  as  the  realizing  of  the  solidarity  of  the  world, 
Thackeray’s  May  Day  Ode,  which  appeared  in  The  Times, 
and  other  utterances  in  the  Press  show,  as  Professor  Bury 
points  out  in  The  Idea  of  Progress,  that  “the  Exhibition  was, 

181 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


at  the  time,  optimistically  regarded  not  merely  as  a  record  of 
material  achievement  and  technical  progress,  but  as  a  demon¬ 
stration  that  humanity  was  at  last  on  its  way  to  a  better  and 
happier  state.  ...  A  vista  was  suggested,  at  the  end  of  which 
far-sighted  people  might  think  they  discerned  Tennyson’s 
‘  Federation  of  the  World.’  ”  Punch  never  failed  to  give  the 
Prince  the  credit  of  initiating  the  scheme,  and,  after  a  little  wav¬ 
ering,  gave  it  his  enthusiastic  support.  The  change  in  public 
opinion  towards  the  Prince  is  well  reflected  in  the  frank  but 
friendly  palinode  which  appeared  in  the  issue  of  November  26, 
1853,  as  a  result  of  the  suggestion  made  by  City  magnates  to 
erect  a  statue  to  the  Prince  in  Hyde  Park  :  — 

PRINCE  PUNCH  TO  PRINCE  ALBERT 

Illustrious  and  excellent  brother, 

Don’t  consider  me  rude  or  unkind, 

If,  as  from  one  Prince  to  another, 

I  give  you  a  bit  of  my  mind — 

And  I  do  so  with  all  the  more  roundness, 

As  your  conduct  amongst  us  has  shown 
A  propriety,  judgment  and  soundness 
Of  taste,  not  surpassed  by  my  own. 

You’ve  respected  John  Bull’s  little  oddities, 

Never  trod  on  the  old  fellow’s  corns; 

Chose  his  pictures  and  statues — commodities 
Wherein  his  own  blunders  he  mourns. 

And  if  you’re  a  leetle  more  German 
In  these  than  I’d  have  you — what  is’t 
Beyond  what  a  critic  may  term  an 
Educational  bias  or  twist? 

*  *  *  * 

You  have  never  pressed  forward  unbidden  ; 

When  called  on  you’ve  never  shown  shame, 

Not  paraded,  nor  prudishly  hidden 

Your  person,  your  purse,  or  your  name; 

You’ve  lent  no  man  occasion  to  call  you 
Intruder,  intriguer,  or  tool ; 

Even  I’ve  not  had  often  to  haul  you 

O’er  the  coals,  or  to  take  you  to  school. 

182 


Prince  Punch  to  Prince  Albert 


All  this,  my  dear  Prince,  gives  me  boldness — 

Which,  au  reste,  our  positions  allow — 

For  a  hint  (which  you’ll  not  charge  to  coldness, 

After  all  I  have  written  just  now)  : 

Which  is  to  put  down  certain  flunkies, 

Who  by  flatt’ry  your  favour  would  earn, 

Pelting  praise  at  your  head,  as  at  monkeys 
Tars  throw  stones — to  get  nuts  in  return. 

*  *  *  * 

# 

Then  silence  your  civic  applauders, 

Lest  better  men  cease  from  applause. 

He  who  tribute  accepts  of  marauders, 

Is  held  to  be  pledged  to  their  cause. 

Let  no  Corporate  magnates  of  London 
An  honour  presume  to  award  : 

Their  own  needs,  till  ill-doings  be  undone, 

Little  honour  to  spare  can  afford  ! 

A  little  later  on,  on  the  eve  of  the  Crimean  War,  Punch 
was  evidently  impressed  by  the  alleged  interference  of  the 
Prince  in  high  affairs  of  State.  The  cartoon  of  January  7,  1854, 
represents  the  Prince  skating  on  thin  ice  marked  “Foreign 
Affairs — Very  Dangerous,”  and  Mr.  Punch  shouting  to 
him;  and  in  the  same  issue  the  lines  “Hint  and  Hypothesis” 
warn  the  Prince  against  shifting  his  tactics  and  adopting  the 
role  of  an  intriguer.  These  rumours  were  so  persistent  that 
Lord  Aberdeen  felt  it  necessary  to  allude  to  them  in  the  House 
of  Lords  at  the  opening  of  the  Session,  declaring  that  not  only 
was  there  no  foundation  for  the  charge  that  the  Prince  had 
interfered  with  the  Army  or  the  Horse  Guards,  but  that  he  had 
declined  the  suggestion  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington  that  he 
should  succeed  him  as  Commander-in-Chief.  His  interest  in 
the  Army  was  naturally  keen,  but  it  was  general.  That  he  was 
the  adviser  of  the  Queen,  in  his  capacity  of  husband  and  most 
intimate  companion  was  beyond  all  doubt,  but  Lord  Aberdeen 
vigorously  maintained  that  he  had  never  uttered  a  single 
syllable  in  the  Council  which  had  not  tended  to  the  honour,  the 
interest,  and  the  welfare  of  the  country.  Still  suspicion  was  not 
wholly  appeased,  and  Punch’s  references  to  the  Prince  during 

183 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


the  Crimean  War  were  none  too  friendly.  In  1855  he  is  credited 
with  the  intention  of  heroically  resigning  his  Field  Marshal’s 
baton  and  pay,  as  a  “noble  beginning  of  Military  Reform,”  in 
response  to  the  public  cry  for  the  dismissal  of  “incompetent 
nobility.”  And  at  the  end  of  the  year  his  desire  to  go  to  the 
Crimea  is  made  the  subject  of  ironic  remonstrance.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  reader  of  to-day  must  be  told,  the  inten¬ 
tion  and  the  desire  were  both  inventions  of  Punch,  who  was 
playing  his  favourite  game  of  attributing  to  exalted  personages 
resolves  and  actions  which  they  never  contemplated,  but  which 
he  wanted  them  to  make  or  take,  and  which  if  they  had  taken, 
he  would  probably  have  criticized  as  unnecessary  and  inju¬ 
dicious.  Even  more  malicious  was  the  picture  of  Punch  re¬ 
garding  a  portrait  of  the  Prince,  exhibited  in  the  Academy 
of  1857,  in  Field  Marshal’s  uniform,  and  saying  to  himself, 
“What  sanguinary  engagement  can  it  be?”  Punch  cannot  be 
acquitted  of  treating  the  Prince  Consort — as  he  only  now  began 
to  be  generally  called — with  less  than  justice  in  view  of  the 
difficult  and  delicate  position  he  occupied.  The  impression 
was  given  that  the  Prince  wanted  to  meddle  in  the  conduct  of 
the  War,  and  that  it  was  necessary  to  prevent  him  from  making 
himself  a  nuisance  by  going  to  the  front.  And  mixed  with  this 
was  the  impression,  which  these  cartoons  and  comments 
prompted,  that  the  Prince  was  making  a  request  which  he  knew 
would  be  refused ;  that,  in  short,  he  was  at  once  vain-glorious, 
insincere,  and  self-protective.  It  was  not  the  first  time  Punch 
had  been  unjust  to  the  Prince  :  he  had  failed  to  recognize 
him  as  a  powerful  ally  in  the  campaign  against  duelling  in 
1843.  In  the  main,  however,  it  may  be  urged  that  ridicule  gave 
place  to  criticism  in  the  latter  years  of  the  Prince’s  life;  but 
the  revulsion  of  feeling  in  Punch — and  the  public — did  not  set 
in  until  after  his  death.  Like  Peel,  the  Prince  Consort  had  to 
die  before  his  services  to  the  country  were  recognized. 

As  the  Prince  Consort  was,  often  without  just  grounds,  the 
chief  cause  of  the  unpopularity  of  the  Court  and  the  favourite 
target  of  satire,  we  have  given  him  priority  in  this  survey.  But, 
quite  apart  from  the  influence  which  he  exerted,  or  was  supposed 
to  exert,  upon  her,  the  Queen  was  by  no  means  exempt  from 

184 


THE  GRASSHOPPERS’  FEAST:  A  PROPHETIC  VISION. 

Queen  Butterfly  received  by  Lord  Grasshopper — Monday, 
October  28,  1844. 


185 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


direct  censure,  remonstrance,  and  exceedingly  frank  criticism. 
In  one  respect,  however,  the  Queen  was  treated  with  invariable 
consideration.  Even  in  his  most  democratic  days  Punch  never 
caricatured  the  Sovereign.  The  portraits  of  the  Queen  are 
always  pleasant,  even  flattering.  Witness  the  delightful  picture 
of  her  visit  to  the  City  in  1844.  Though  Punch’s  pen  was 
sharp  his  pencil  was  kind,  though  at  times  extremely  familiar, 
as  in  the  prophetic  cartoon  published  under  the  heading,  “A 
Royal  Nursery  Rhyme  for  i860*”  :  — 

There  was  a  Royal  Lady  who  lived  in  a  shoe, 

She  had  so  many  children  she  didn’t  know  what  to  do. 

As  early  as  the  Christmas  number  of  1842  Punch  had  given 
“the  arrangements  for  the  next  ten  years  of  the  Royal  family,” 
with  the  names  and  titles  of  eleven  princes  and  princesses  !  In 
the  spring  of  1843  he  comments,  with  mock  sympathy,  on  the 
Queen’s  liability  to  income  tax.  More  serious  is  the  charge, 
brought  in  his  favourite  oblique  fashion,  against  the  Queen  for 
the  neglect  of  her  duties. — 


TREASONOUS  ATTACK  ON  HER  MAJESTY 

Punch  has  been  greatly  shocked  by  a  very  treasonable  letter 
in  the  columns  of  The  Times.  Whether  Punch’s  friend,  the  Attorney 
General,  has  had  the  epistle  handed  over  to  him,  and  contemplates 
immediate  proceedings  against  ‘‘C.  H.,”  the  traitorous  writer, 
Punch  knows  not ;  but  after  this  information,  the  distinguished 
law-officer  cannot  plead  ignorance  of  the  evil,  as  an  apology  for 
future  supineness.  The  letter  purports  to  be  a  remonstrance  to  our 
sover  eign  lady,  the  Queen ;  in  a  measure,  accusing  Her  Gracious 
Majesty  of  a  certain  degree  of  indifference  towards  the  interests 
of  London  trade,  of  literature,  the  arts  and  sciences.  The  rebel 
writes  as  follows  : — 

“  Buckingham  Palace  is  neither  so  agreeable  nor  salubrious  a 
residence  as  Windsor,  but  neither  is  the  crown  so  pleasant  to  wear 
as  a  bonnet.  I  trust  it  is  not  necessary  to  remind  Queen  Victoria 
that  royalty,  like  property,  has  its  duties  as  well  as  its  rights. 
One  of  these  duties  is  to  reside  in  the  metropolis  of  the  kingdom, 
the  presence  of  the  sovereign  in  the  capital  being  essential  on  many 
occasions.  I  could  enumerate  other  duties  of  the  sovereign,  such, 
for  instance,  as  conferring  fashion  on  public  entertainments  that 

*  See  p.  169. 


Neglect  of  Native  Talent 


deserve  to  be  encouraged  by  attending  such  places'" of  amusement, 
and  countenancing  science,  literature  and  the  arts,  by  honouring 
distinguished  professors  with  marks  of  approbation ;  in  which  re¬ 
spect  it  is  much  to  be  regretted  there  is  too  much  room  for  those 
remarks  on  the  remissness  of  Her  Majesty  in  these  respects  that 
are  so  frequently  made  in  society.  When  we  know  how  much 
dis^ntent,  engendered  by  widely  spread  and  deeply-felt  distress 
is  expressed  by  persons  not*  to  be  numbered  among  ‘  the  lower 
classes,  ’  it  is  not  without  alarm  that  the  influence  of  these  acts 
of  omission  on  the  part  of  Queen  Victoria  can  be  regarded ;  and  it 
becomes  the  duty  of  every  friend  of  the  monarchy  and  the  con¬ 
stitution  to  warn  the  Sovereign  of  the  danger,  not  merely  to  her 
personal  popularity,  but  to  the  feeling  of  loyalty  to  the  throne,  that 
is  likely  to  accrue  from  such  neglect.” 

In  these  years,  and  for  a  good  many  years  to  come,  Punch 
hunted  in  couples  with  The  Times. 

The  neglect  of  native  talent  and  the  encouragement  of  foreign 
artists,  musicians,  men  of  letters,  is  harped  upon  in  number 
after  number  for  year  after  year.  Here  again  the  method  is 
sometimes  direct,  sometimes  oblique,  as  in  the  fictitious  list  of 
people  invited  to  the  Court :  Dickens,  Hood,  Mrs.  Somerville, 
and  Maria  Edgeworth.  Another  opportunity  was  when  it  was 
announced  that  the  Danish  Royal  family  had  attended  the 
funeral  of  Thorwaldsen  in  deep  mourning,  Punch  exclaims, 
“imagine  for  a  moment  English  Royalty  in  deep  mourning 
for  departed  genius  !  ”  The  often-repeated  visits  of  “  General 
Tom  Thumb”  to  Court  in  1844  made  him  very  angry. 
At  the  second  “command”  performance  the  General  “per¬ 
sonated  Napoleon  amid  great  mirth,  and  this  was  followed  by  a 
representation  of  Grecian  statues,  after  which  he  danced  a 
nautical  hornpipe,  and  sang  several  of  his  favourite  songs”  in 
the  presence,  as  Punch  notes,  of  the  Queen  of  the  Belgians, 
daughter  of  Louis  Philippe.  But  Punch  had  his  revenge  on 
this  curious  and  deep-rooted  interest  of  Royalty  in  dwarfs — < 
Queen  Isabella  of  Spain  had  one  permanently  attached 
to  her  staff — by  indulging  in  a  delightful  speculation  on 
the  happy  results  that  would  have  ensued  if  George  IV,  like 
General  Tom  Thumb,  had  stopped  growing  at  the  age  of  five 
months :  — 


187 


Mr.  P uncli  s  History  of  Modern  England 


How  much  we  should  have  been  spared  had  George  IV  only 
weighed  15  lbs.  and  stopped  at  25  inches!  How  much  would 
have  been  saved  merely  in  tailors’  bills,  and  how  many  pavilions 
for  his  dwarf  majesty  might  have  been  built  at  a  hundredth  part 
of  the  cost  that  was  swallowed  by  the  royal  folly  at  Brighton  ! 

The  Georges,  it  may  be  remarked,  were  no  favourites  of 
Punch,  nor  was  this  to  be  wondered  at  when  one  recalls  their 
treatment  at  the  hands  of  Thackeray,  the  least  democratic 
member  of  the  staff.  Punch  considered  that  Brummell  was  a 
better  man  than  his  “fat  friend,”  and  consigned  the  latter  to 
infamy  in  the  following  caustic  epitaph,  one  of  a  series  on  the 
Four  Georges :  — 

GEORGIUS  ULTIMUS 

He  left  an  example  for  age  and  for  youth 
To  avoid. 

He  never  acted  well  by  Man  or  Woman, 

And  was  as  false  to  his  Mistress  as  to  his  Wife. 

He  deserted  his  Friends  and  his  Principles. 

He  was  so  ignorant  that  he  could  scarcely  spell ; 

But  he  had  some  skill  in  cutting  out  Coats, 

And  an  undeniable  Taste  for  Cookery. 

He  built  the  Palaces  of  Brighton  and  of  Buckingham, 

And  for  these  Qualities  and  Proofs  of  Genius, 

An  admiring  Aristocracy 

Christened  him  the  ‘‘First  Gentleman  in  Europe.” 

Friends,  respect  the  KING  whose  Statue  is  here, 

And  the  generous  Aristocracy  who  admired  him. 

In  the  same  year  Punch,  with  malicious  inventiveness,  repre¬ 
sented  Queen  Victoria  in  the  act  of  unveiling  a  great  statue  to 
Shakespeare  on  Shakespeare  Cliff,  adding  as  her  epitaph  : 
“She  rarely  went  to  the  Italian  Opera  and  she  raised  a 
statue  to  Shakespeare.”  In  these  agilities  The  Times  again 
proved  a  useful  ally,  for  in  the  same  number  we  find  the 
following  :  — 

HIGH  TREASON 

A  traitor,  who  signs  himself  “Alpha,”  and  writes  in  The  Times, 
writes  thus  : — 


TRAINING  SCHOOL  FOR  LADIES  ABOUT  TO  APPEAR  AT  COURT 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


“  It  is  no  use  to  conceal  the  fact — British  high  art  is  hated  at 
Court,  and  dreaded  by  the  aristocracy.  They  don’t  want  it;  they 
can’t  afford  it;  they  think  any  art,  which  does  not  cultivate  their 
vanity  or  domestic  affections,  can  have  no  earthly  use  !  ” 

We  trust  that  the  writer  of  the  above  will  be  immediately  com¬ 
mitted  to  the  Tower,  there,  in  due  season,  to  be  brought  to  the 
block. 

It  was  a  letter  in  The  Times  that  again  prompted  Punch’s 
remonstrance,  in  July,  1845,  against  the  Queen’s  preference 
for  French  milliners,  and  an  historical  contrast  is  rubbed  in 
by  the  article  on  the  imaginary  “Royal  Poetry  Books,”  or 
didactic  poems,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Royal  infants,  of  which 
two  specimens  may  be  quoted  :  — 

THE  NEW  SINGER  OF  ITALY 

There  was  a  new  Singer  of  Italy 

Who  went  through  his  part  very  prettily ; 

“Mamma  tinks  him  so  fine, 

We  must  have  him  to  dine  !  ” 

Papa  remarked  silly  and  wittily. 

THE  OLD  SINGER  OF  AVON 

There  was  an  old  Singer  of  Avon, 

Who,  Aunty  Bess  thought,  was  a  brave  one; 

But  Mamma  doesn’t  care 
For  this  stupid  swan’s  air, 

Any  more  than  the  croak  of  a  raven. 


The  Court  was  certainly  not  addicted  to  extravagance,  but 
the  Queen’s  “bal  poudre  ”  in  June  is  heavily  ridiculed,  largely, 
no  doubt,  because  of  Punch’s  frequently  expressed  conviction 
that  the  British  never  shone  as  masqueraders.  Cobden’s  speech 
in  1848,  attacking  highly-paid  sinecures  in  the  Royal  House¬ 
hold,  is  approved,  but  Punch  was  no  advocate  of  parsimony. 
The  new  front  of  Buckingham  Palace  is  severely  criticized  in 
March,  1849:  its  only  beauty  is  that  of  hiding  the  remainder 
of  the  building  like  “a  clean  front  put  on  to  make  the  best  of 
an  indifferent  shirt.”  The  “mountainous  flunkeydom  ”  at  Royal 

1  go 


Royal  Visits  and  Visitors 


levees  is  a  frequent  incentive  to  ridicule  with  pen  and  pencil ; 
Punch  is  happy  in  pillorying  the  Morning  Post  for  the  use  of 
the  phrase,  “the  dense  mass  of  the  nobility  and  gentry  ”  at 
one  of  Lady  Derby’s  receptions;  while  he  applauds  the  Queen 
for  setting  a  good  example  by  giving  early  juvenile  parties  in 


CALYPSO  MOURNING  THE  DEPARTURE  OF  ULYSSES 

Calypso,  Q - n  V - a  ;  Ulysses,  K — g  of  the  F - h. 


the  season  of  1850.  Her  visits  and  visitors  were  carefully 
scrutinized  and  freely  criticized,  beginning  with  the  Royal 
tour  in  Belgium  and  France  in  the  autumn  of  1843,  when 
Queen  Victoria  is  represented  as  mesmerizing  Louis  Philippe 
with  a  Commercial  Treaty.  Punch  was  in  frequent  hot 
water  with  Louis  Philippe— whom,  by  the  way,  he  once  re¬ 
presented  as  Fagin — and  the  impending  visit  of  the  French 

191 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


Sovereign,  at  the  close  of  1844,  led  to  some  plain  talk  on  his 
folly  in  proscribing  and  impounding  Punch,  followed  up  by  a 
burlesque  account  of  his  arrival  at  Portsmouth,  with  an  ironical 
reference  to  the  omission  of  all  literary  men,  painters,  musicians, 
sculptors,  etc.,  from  the  invitations  to  meet  him  at  Court.  When 
the  French  King  left,  Punch  burlesqued  the  situation  by  re¬ 
presenting  the  Queen  as  Calypso.  Punch,  like  the  Skibbereen 
Eagle,  always  kept  his  eye  on  the  Tsar  of  Russia — and,  indeed, 
upon  all  foreign  potentates.  The  Tsar  Nicholas  stood,  to  him, 
for  all  that  was  evil  in  “the  King  business.”  His  attacks  began 
in  1S42  and  never  ceased  in  the  Tsar’s  lifetime.  The  visit  to 
England  in  the  summer  of  1844  was  the  signal  for  an  explosion 
of  bitter  hostility.  Readers  of  Punch  are  advised  to  carry  every 
penny  of  the  largess  he  drops  to  the  Polish  Fund.  They  should 
be  polite,  but  avoid  any  approval  of  his  looks  or  manners.  The 
Tsar’s  misdeeds  and  acts  of  harshness  to  Poles  and  Jews  are 
minutely  recalled.  Queen  Victoria  is  shown  in  a  cartoon  offer¬ 
ing  Poland  as  a  bun  to  Nicholas  the  Bear  at  the  Zoo.  The  Tsar’s 
lavish  presents  are  flouted  and  condemned.  A  design  for  the 
500-guinea  cup  he  offered  for  Ascot  is  made  a  hideous  memento 
of  savage  repression.  His  subscription  to  the  Polish  Ball  is 
compared  to  the  action  of  Claude  Duval  fiddling  to  his  victims. 
The  Tsar,  in  short,  was  “good  for  Knout”;  and  John  Bull 
was  being  led  by  the  nose  with  a  diamond  ring  in  it.  Nor 
has  Punch  a  single  good  word  to  say  for  the  King  of  Prussia 
right  from  1842  to  1857.  His  visit  in  the  former  year,  ”to 
strengthen  the  cast  of  the  Prince  of  Wales’s  christening,” 
met  with  anything  but  a  friendly  welcome.  When  he  re¬ 
turned  in  the  year  1844,  Punch  profoundly  distrusted  the 
King’s  humility  when  he  visited  Newgate  with  Mrs.  Fry  and 
knelt  and  prayed  in  the  female  prisoners’  ward;  and  his  sus¬ 
picions  were  confirmed  by  his  treatment  of  the  refugee  Poles, 
who  were  handed  back  to  the  mercies  of  Tsar  Nicholas. 
Throughout  the  entire  period  the  King  of  Prussia  figures  as 
“King  Clicquot,”  from  his  alleged  fondness  for  the  bottle.  The 
King  of  Hanover  comes  off  even  worse.  Witness  the  truly 
amazing  frankness  of  the  comments  on  his  visit  in  June, 
1843  :  — 


Royal  Parasites 


TRIUMPHAL  RETURN  OF  THE  KING  OF  HANOVER 

The  King  of  Hanover  is  once  more  among  us.  After  a  painful 
absence  of  six  years — intensely  painful  to  all  parties— the  monarch 
returns  to  the  country  of  his  birth,  a  country  to  which  he  will  leave 
his  name,  as  Wordsworth  says  of  Wallace,  “as  a  flower,”  odorous 
and  perennial.  He  arrives  here,  it  is  said,  to  be  present  at  the 
marriage  of  his  niece,  the  Princess  Augusta,  with  a  German  Prince, 
who  is  not  only  to  take  an  English  wife,  but  with  her  three  thousand 
pounds  per  annum  of  English  money ;  of  money  coined  from  the 
sweat  of  starving  thousands ;  money  to  gild  the  shabby  Court  of 
Mecklenburg  with  new  splendour.  Sir  Robert  Peel  has  been,  it 
is  said,  under  a  course  of  steel  draughts,  and  other  invigorating 
medicine,  the  better  to  fortify  himself  in  his  address  to  the  Commons 
for  the  cash.  Sir  Robert,  however,  acutely  alive  to  our  fallen 
revenue,  is  still  very  nervous.  It  is  reported  that,  on  the  evening 
when  the  demand  upon  the  patience  and  the  rags  of  John  Bull  was 
made,  the  Prime  Minister  blushed  “for  that  night  only.” 

***** 

Herein  is  the  extreme  value  of  the  numberless  scions  of  Royalty 
with  which  England  is  over-blessed.  The  Duke  of  Cumberland 
(we  mean  the  King  of  Hanover)  has  ^23,000  a  year  from  the  sweat 
of  Englishmen.  And  does  not  his  Highness,  or  his  Kingship, 
whilst  taking  a  salary,  exercise  a  most  salutary  effect  upon 
Britons?  Does  he  not  practically  teach  them  the  beauty  of  humility 
— -of  long  suffering- — of  self-denying  charity  and  benevolence? 
Why,  he  is  a  continual  record  of  the  liberality  and  magnanimity  of 
Englishmen,  who,  if  ever  they  fall  into  an  excess  of  admiration  for 
royalty,  will  owe  the  enthusiasm  to  such  bright  examples  as  the 
monarch  of  Hanover.  In  the  East  there  are  benevolent  votaries 
who  build  expensive  fabrics  for  the  entertainment  of  the  most 
noisome  creatures.  Englishmen  are  above  such  superstition ;  and 
in  the  very  pride  and  height  of  their  intelligence,  allow  ^23,000  to 
the  King  of  Hanover. 

The  wedding  of  the  Princess  Augusta,  daughter  of  the  Duke 
of  Cambridge,  to  the  Prince  of  Mecklenburg-Strelitz,  was  the 
occasion  of  a  wonderful  explosion  in  the  Morning  Post: — • 

Jenkins  was  present  at  the  ceremony.  He  was  somehow 
smuggled  into  the  Royal  Chapel,  and  stood  hidden  in  a  corner, 
hidden  by  a  huge  bouquet ,  quite  another  Cupid  among  the  roses. 
Let  us,  however,  proceed  to  give  the  “  feelings  ”  of  Jenkins,  merely 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


premising  that  we  should  very  much  like  to  see  Jenkins,  when  he 
feels  “proud,  elated  and  deeply  moved.”  He  says  : 

“We  felt  alternately  proud,  elated,  and  deeply  moved  during 
the  ceremony  as  in  turn  we  cast  a  glance  at  the  illustrious  witnesses 
to  the  solemnity.  There  was  our  gracious  Queen,  beaming  with 
youth  and  beauty,  through  which  is  ever  discernible  the  eagle  glance 
and  the  imposing  air  of  command  so  well  suited  to  her  high  station. 
Next  to  the  Queen,  the  Royal  Consort,  one  of  the  handsomest 
Princes  of  the  age,  in  whom  the  spirit  of  youth  is  so  remarkably 
tempered  by  the  judgment  and  wisdom  of  age.  The  Queen  Adelaide, 
living  model  of  every  Virtue  which  can  adorn  a  Woman  either  in 
private  life  or  on  a  throne.” 

So  far  the  Morning  Post.  What  says  (perhaps?)  an  equal 
authority,  The  Times? 

“The  Queen  Dowager  was  prevented  from  being  present  at  the 
Ceremony  in  consequence  of  indisposition.” 

The  old  Duke  Adolphus  Frederick  of  Cambridge  was  another 
target  of  never-ending  ridicule.  He  was  a  great  diner-out,  and 
his  fatuous  after-dinner  speeches  are  cruelly  parodied.  He  was 
also  “the  Duke  who  thinks  aloud,”  whether  at  the  play  or  at 
the  Chapel  Royal  :  — 

A  few  Sundays  ago,  the  Minister  and  the  Duke  proceeded  as 
follows  : 

Minister.  From  all  evil  and  mischief;  from  sin,  from  the  crafts 
of  the  devil - 

(Duke.  To  be  sure;  very  proper — very  proper.) 

Minister.  From  all  sedition,  conspiracy,  and  rebellion - 

(Duke.  Certainly;  very  right — very  right.) 

And  thus  Parson  and  Duke  proceeded  together  almost  to  the 
end.  However,  the  worthy  clergyman  had  to  offer  a  prayer  for  the 
sick.  Proceeding  in  this  pious  task,  he  thus  commenced  : 

Minister.  The  prayers  of  this  congregation  are  earnestly  desired 
for - 

(Duke.  No  objection — no  objection  !) 

One  certainly  does  not  gather  from  Punch’s  pages  what  was 
none  the  less  a  fact,  that  the  Duke  was  extremely  popular,  that 
he  was  charitable  and  benevolent,  and  an  enlightened  patron 
of  science  and  art,  or  that  he  was  emphatically  recognized  as 
“a  connecting  link  between  the  throne  and  the  people.” 

194 


A  Royal  Duke  s  Household 


On  the  Duke’s  death  in  1850,  Punch,  with  his  usual  vigour, 
attacked  the  grant  of  ^12,000  a  year  to  his  son,  the  late 
and  last  Duke  of  Cambridge,  at  a  time  when  the  claims  of 
Horatia  (Nelson’s  daughter)  and  Mrs.  Waghorn,  widow  of  the 
pioneer  of  the  Overland  Route,  were  neglected.  The  immediate 
sequel  led  to  further  caustic  remarks:  — 

FOUR  EQUERRIES  AND  THREE  CHAPLAINS 

What  can  a  quiet,  kind,  manly,  and  simple  gentleman,  Prince 
though  he  be  of  the  British  Blood  Royal,  want  at  this  present  period 
of  time  with  four  Equerries  and  three  parsons  in  the  Gazette?  Are 
these  ceremonies  nowadays  useful  and  decorous,  or  absurd  and 
pitiable;  and  likely  to  cause  the  scorn  and  laughter  of  men  of  sense? 
When  the  greatest  and  wisest  Statesman  in  England  [Sir  Robert 
Peel]  dying  declares  he  will  have 
no  title  for  his  sons,  and,  as  it 
were,  repudiates  the  Peerage  as 
a  part  of  the  Protective  system 
which  must  fall  one  day,  as  other 
Protective  institutions  have  fallen 
—can’t  sensible  people  read  the 
signs  of  the  times  and  be  quiet? 

When  Lord  John  comes  down  to 
the  House  (with  that  pluck  which 
his  Lordship  always  shows  when 
he  has  to  meet  an  unpopular 
measure)  and  asks  for  an  allow¬ 
ance,  which  the  nation  grudg- 
ingly  grants  to  its  pensioners — 
when  the  allowance  is  flung  at 
his  Royal  Highness  with  a 
grumble,  is  it  wise  to  come 
out  the  next  day  with  a  tail  of 
four  Equerries  and  three  clergy¬ 
men? 

Louis  Napoleon  stands 
apart  from  the  other  European 
sovereigns  of  the  mid-nine¬ 
teenth  century  in  virtue  of  his 
origin  and  his  career.  But  he 

ran  the  Tsar  Nicholas  close,  if  THE  MODERN  DAMOCLES 


195 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


he  did  not  equal  him,  as  Punch’s  pet  aversion.  As  early  as  1849 
his  imperialistic  ambitions  led  to  the  hostile  comment  that  “em- 
pire  ”  meant  empirer.  The  Coup  d’Etat  was  the  signal  for  the 
fiercest  attacks  on  his  policy  of  “homicide.”  His  matrimonial 
ventures  prompted  the  ribald  suggestion  that  the  Emperor 
Louis  should  marry  Lola  Montez !  His  persistent  gagging 
of  the  Press  in  France,  and  his  attempts  to  subsidize  or 
manipulate  that  in  England,  are  vehemently  denounced. 
Punch’s  attacks  ceased  during  the  Crimean  War,  but  it  was  a 
reluctant  truce,  and  they  broke  out  again  after  the  Peace  was 
signed.  Douglas  Jerrold  cordially  detested  the  Emperor,  and 
was  responsible  for  the  hardest  of  the  many  hard  things  said 
against  him  in  Punch. 

By  a  strange  irony  of  fate  it  was  Douglas  Jerrold’s  own 
son,  William  Blanchard  Jerrold,  who,  working  upon  materials 
supplied  him  by  the  Empress  Eugenie,  produced  in  the  four 
volumes  of  his  Life  of  Napoleon  III  the  chief  apologia  in 
English  of  the  Second  Empire. 

But  to  return  to  the  Queen  and  the  English  Royal  Family. 
Amongst  Punch’s  unconscious  prophecies  room  must  certainly 
be  found  for  his  reference,  in  a  satire  of  the  Queen’s  speech 
when  Peel  was  Premier,  to  Pier  Majesty  as  “Victoria  Windsor  ” 
nearly  seventy-five  years  before  the  surname  was  formally 
adopted  by  her  grandson.  The  suggested  statue  to  Cromwell 
at  the  new  Houses  of  Parliament  gave  rise  to  a  long  and 
heated  controversy  in  1845  in  which  Punch  ranged  himself 
militantly  among  the  partisans  of  the  Protector.  He  published 
mock  protests  from  various  sovereigns;  he  considered 
Cromwell’s  claim  side  by  side  with  those  of  the  “Sexigamist” 
murderer  Henry  VIII  and  other  kings,  and  printed  a  burlesque 
design  of  his  own,  with  a  sneer  at  Pugin  for  his  “determined 
zeal  in  keeping  up  the  bad  drawing  of  the  Middle  Ages.” 

The  Queen’s  visit  to  Ireland  in  1849  is  treated  in  consider¬ 
able  detail,  and  in  an  optimistic  vein.  Punch  never  believed 
in  the  Repeal  Agitation  or  in  Daniel  O’Connell,  whom  he  re¬ 
garded  as  a  trading  patriot  and  a  self-seeking  demagogue, 
contrasting  him  unfavourably  with  Father  Mathew.  Nor  had 
he  any  sympathy  with  “Young  Ireland,”  or  Thomas  Davis,  or 

196 


SHOULD  CROMWELL  HAVE  A  STATUE? 


197 


Mr.  Punch s  Plistory  of  Modern  England 


the  romantic  leaders  of  the  movement  of  1848;  as  for  Smith 
O’Brien,  an  immortality  of  ridicule  was  conferred  on  him  in 
Thackeray’s  famous  ballad  on  “The  Battle  of  Limerick.”  The 
terrible  ravages  of  the  potato  famine  had  evoked  Punch's  sym¬ 
pathy;  but  his  hopes  of  an  enduring  reconciliation  were  small, 
and  he  quotes  the  tremendous  saying  of  Giraldus  Cambrensis 
that  Ireland  would  be  pacified  vix  pauld  ante  Diem  Judicii — 
or  only  just  before  the  Day  of  Judgment.  Still,  the  Queen’s 
visit  was  hailed  as  of  good  omen,  though  Punch  reminds 
her  that  she  had  only  seen  the  bright  side  of  the  dark  Rosa- 
leen — palaces  and  not  cabins.  “Let  Erin  forget  the  days  of 
old  ”  is  the  burden  of  his  song;  at  least  he  refrained  from  quot¬ 
ing — if  he  ever  knew  of  it — that  other  terrible  saying  that 
“Ireland  never  forgets  anything  except  the  benefits  that  she 
has  received.”  The  Queen’s  magnanimity  and  clemency  to  her 
traducer  Jasper  Judge  in  the  same  year  called  forth  a  warm 
eulogium.  Judge  was  a  thief  and  a  spy,  yet  the  Queen,  on  the 
petition  of  his  wife,  paid  the  costs  of  her  vilifier. 

In  1849,  also,  Punch,  evidently  still  in  mellower  mood, 
published  an  enthusiastic  tribute  to  the  memory  of  the  Dowager 
Queen  Adelaide,  who  died  on  December  2.  Punch  specially 
refers  to  her  generosity  to  Mrs.  Jordan,  the  mistress  of 
William  IV,  when  he  was  Duke  of  Clarence,  and  the  mother 
of  ten  of  his  children.  “Let  those  who  withhold  their  aid 
from  the  daughter  of  Nelson,  because  the  daughter  of  Lady 
Hamilton,  consider  this  and  know  that  the  best  chastity 
is  adorned  by  the  largest  charity.”  Queen  Adelaide  had 
long  outlived  the  unpopularity  caused  by  her  supposed  inter¬ 
ference  in  politics  at  the  time  of  the  Reform  Agitation,  and 
Punch’s  homage  was  well  deserved.  It  is  a  sign  of  the 
times  that  Punch  begins  to  allude  to  the  Queen  as  “our  good 
Queen,”  or  more  affectionately  as  “our  little  Queen,”  and 
this  growth  of  her  popularity  continues  (with  occasional  set¬ 
backs)  throughout  the  ’fifties.  At  the  close  of  1852  Punch  ridi¬ 
cules  as  absurd  the  rumour  of  the  betrothal  of  the  Princess 
Royal  to  Prince  Frederick  William  of  Prussia,  the  Princess 
being  only  twelve  years  old.  The  report  appeared  in  a  German 
paper,  and  proved  true.  Punch’s  chief  objection  was  senti- 

198 


The  Princess  Royal's  Betrothal 


mental :  “The  age  is  past  when  Royalty  respected  its  family 
at  the  rate  of  live  stock,”  and  he  could  not  believe  that  such 
a  principle  would  govern  the  Court,  seeing  that  it  was 
“adorned  now  at  last  with  the  domestic  graces.”  Besides, 
Punch  in  the  summer  of  1844  had  published  his  own  New 
Royal  Marriage  Act  (suggested  by  The  Times’s  comment  on 
the  late  Duke  of  Sussex’s  love  letters),  which  winds  up  :  “  Be 
it  therefore  enacted  that  a  member  of  the  Royal  Family  shall 
be  at  liberty  to  marry  whom  or  how  or  when,  where  or  any¬ 
where,  he  or  she  likes  or  pleases.” 

Scepticism  of  the  report  animates  the  set  of  verses  published 
three  years  later  : — 

ABSURD  RUMOUR  OF  AN  APPROACHING  MARRIAGE  IN 
THE  HIGHEST  LIFE 

They  say  that  young  Prussia  oui  Princess  will  wed, 

Which  shows  that  we  can’t  believe  half  that  is  said. 

What?  she  marry  the  nephew  of  Clicquot  the  mean  ! 

The  friend  and  ally  of  the  foe  of  the  Queen? 

Why,  nothing  keeps  Clicquot  from  standing  array’d 

Against  her  in  arms,  but  his  being  afraid. 

His  near  kinsman  the  spouse  of  Her  Majesty’s  child  ! 

Pooh  ! — the  notion  is  monstrous,  preposterous,  wild. 

The  Princess  is — bless  her  ! — scarce  fifteen  years  old  ; 

One  summer  more  even  o’er  Dinah  had  roll’d. 

To  marry  so  early  she  can’t  be  inclined ; 

A  suitable  Villikins  some  day  she’ll  find. 

Moreover,  in  her  case,  we  know  very  well, 

There  exist  no  “  stern  parients  ”  her  hand  to  compel, 

Affording  the  Laureate  a  theme  for  a  lay, 

With  a  burden  of  “Teural  lal  leural  li  day.” 


Whether  the  German  newspaper  had  been  merely  exercising 
“intelligent  anticipation  ”  or  not,  the  projected  alliance  was 
confirmed  in  1856.  Punch’s  comment  on  the  Princess’s  dowry 
was  unsympathetic,  but  the  betrothal  was  celebrated  in  verse  at 

199 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


once  ceremonial  and  friendly.  References  to  the  Queen  during 
the  Crimean  War  are  noticed  elsewhere ;  we  may  note,  however, 
that  when  one  “Raphael”  published  a  Prophetic  Almanack  in 
which  he  took  liberties  with  the  Queen’s  name,  Punch  adminis¬ 
tered  a  severe  castigation  to  the  offender.  Punch  did  not  like 
his  monopoly  to  be  infringed. 


200 


THE  OLD  NOBILITY 

BETWEEN  the  aristocracy  as  depicted  in  the  pages  of 
Punch  and  in  those  of  the  Morning  Post  in  the  ’forties 
and  ’fifties  there  is  a  wide  gulf.  As  we  have  seen, 
Punch’s  admiration  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington  stopped  a  long 
way  this  side  of  idolatry.  Yet  even  when  the  Duke  was  criticized 
most  severely  as  a  politician,  the  recognition  of  his  greatness  was 
not  denied.  A  good  example  is  to  be  found  in  the  cartoon  of  the 
“Giant  and  the  Dwarf,”  which  was  inspired  by  Napoleon’s 
legacy  to  the  subaltern  Cantillon,  who  was  charged  with  an 
attempt  to  murder  Wellington.  Wellington  himself  had  been 
approached  with  a  view  to  similar  action  against  Napoleon,  and 
here  was  his  reply  :  — 

“ - wishes  to  kill  him  ;  but  I  have  told  him  that  I  shall  remon¬ 

strate;  I  have  likewise  said  that,  as  a  private  friend,  I  advised  him 
to  have  nothing  to  do  with  so  foul  a  transaction  ;  and  that  he  and 
I  had  acted  too  distinguished  parts  in  these  transactions  to  become 
executioners ;  and  that  I  was  determined  that,  if  the  sovereigns 
wished  to  put  him  to  death,  they  should  appoint  an  executioner, 
which  would  not  be  me.”1 

The  cartoon  is  accompanied  by  this  comment :  — 

The  Duke  has  made  his  political  blunders  and  in  his  time  talked 
political  nonsense  as  well  as  his  inferiors.  Moreover  he  exhibits  a 
defective  sympathy  with  the  people.  .  .  .  Nevertheless,  contrasting 
Wellington’s  answer  to  the  proposed  death  of  the  ex-Emperor  with 
Napoleon’s  reward  of  the  would-be  assassin  of  the  General  (i.e. 
Wellington  himself),  need  we  ask  which  is  the  Giant  and  which  is 
the  Dwarf? 

Other  dukes  cut  a  less  dignified  figure  in  the  lean  years 
which  preceded  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws — whether  as  coal- 
owners,  Protectionists,  or  strict  enforcers  of  the  Game-Laws. 

1  Colonel  Garwood’s  selections  from  the  Duke  of  Wellington’s  Dispatches. 

201 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


The  first  hint  of  the  long  campaign  against  the  Dukes  of 
Bedford  in  connexion  with  “Mud  Salad  Market”  occurs  in 
February,  1844.  The  Dukes  of  Sutherland,  Atholl,  Norfolk 
and  Buckingham  all  came  under  the  lash.  When  Lord  William 


HENRY  MARQUESS  OF  WATERFORD  :  A  NEW  STATUE  OF 

ACHILLES 

Cast  from  Knockers  taken  in  the  vicinities  of  Sackville  Street,  Vigo  Lane, 

and  Waterloo  Place. 


Lennox’s  plagiarisms  from  Hood  and  Scott  in  his  novel 
The  Tuft-hunter  were  exposed,  Punch  printed  this  jingling 
epigram. :  — 

A  Duke  once  declared — and  most  solemnly  too — 

That  whatever  he  liked  with  his  own  he  would  do  ; 

But  the  son  of  a  Duke  has  gone  farther,  and  shown 
He  will  do  what  he  likes  with  what  isn’t  his  own  ! 


202 


Marquesses  under  the  Microscope 


And  the  marquesses  came  off  even  worse.  The  eccentric  Mar¬ 
quess  of  Waterford  is  celebrated  for  his  knocker-hunting 
exploits  in  the  very  first  number.  The  Marquess  of  Hertford — 
the  original  of  Thackeray’s  Marquess  of  Steyne  in  Vanity  Fair 
— is  subjected  to  posthumous  obloquy,  a  propos  of  the  claim  of 
his  valet  on  his  executors,  who  “were  compelled  to  bring  the 
dead  Marquess  into  Court,  that  the  loathsome  dead  may 
declare  the  greater  loathsomeness  of  the  living.”  The  Mar¬ 
quess  of  Londonderry  came  under  the  lash  not  merely  as  a 
rapacious  coal-owner,  but  as  a  bad  writer:  “the  most  noble 
but  not  the  most  grammatical  Marquess.”  So  again  we  are 
informed  respecting  the  Marquess  of  Normanby’s  novels  that 
“they  have  just  declared  a  dividend  of  2^d.  in  the  pound, 
which  is  being  paid  at  all  the  butter  shops.”  One  has  to  wait 
for  nearly  ten  years  for  acknowledgment  of  virtue  in  the 
marquisate,  but  then  it  is  certainly  handsome.  The  occasion 
was  the  entrance  into  power  of  the  Derby-Disraeli  (or  “Dilly- 
Dizzy  ”)  Cabinet : — 

THE  MARQUIS  OF  LANSDOWNE  AND  THE  NEW 
MINISTRY 

The  first  act  of  the  Ministry  in  the  House  of  Lords  was  done 
with  the  worst  of  grace.  The  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  took  farewell 
of  office  and  of  official  life.  And  who  was  there,  among  the  new 
men,  to  do  reverence  to  the  unstudied  yet  touching  ceremony? 
Nobody,  save  the  Earl  of  Malmesbury.  The  Times  says,  and  most 
truly  : 

“A  public  life,  which  has  literally  embraced  the  first  half 
of  this  century,  and  which  last  night  was  most  gracefully  con¬ 
cluded,  deserved  an  ampler  and  richer  tribute  than  our  new 
Foreign  Secretary  seemed  able  to  bestow.” 

Nothing  could  be  colder,  meaner,  and  certainly  more  foreign  to 
the  heartiness  of  English  generosity  than  the  chip-chip  phrases  of 
Lord  Malmesbury.  It  is  such  men  as  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne 
who  are  the  true  strength  of  the  House  of  Lords.  He  is  a  true 
Englishman.  In  fifty  years  of  political  life  his  name  has  never  been 
mixed  with  aught  mean  or  jobbing.  In  the  most  tempestuous  times, 
his  voice  has  been  heard  amongst  the  loudest  for  right.  In  days 
when  to  be  a  reformer  was  to  take  rank  a  little  above  a  fanatic  and 
a  public  despoiler,  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  struck  at  rotten 

203 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


boroughs.  He  has  ever  been  a  patriot  in  the  noblest  sense.  And 
there  was  nobody  but  cold-mouthed  Malmesbury  to  touch  upon  his 
doings?  So  it  is  ! 

Time  hath,  my  lord,  a  wallet  at  his  back 
Wherein  he  puts  alms  for  oblivion, 

A  great-sized  monster  of  ingratitudes  : 

Those  scraps  are  good  deeds  past. 

But  the  political  deeds  of  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  are  written 
in  the  history  of  his  country.  After  the  wear  of  fifty  years,  not 
one  spot  rests  upon  his  robes.  His  coronet  borrows  worth  and 
lustre  from  the  true,  manly,  English  brain  that  beats — (and  in  the 
serene  happiness  of  honoured  age  may  it  long  continue  to  beat !) — 
beneath  it. 

As  for  peers  in  general,  Punch’s  views  may  be  gathered 
from  his  scheme  for  the  Reform  of  the  House  of  Lords  issued 
in  the  same  year:  — 

It  is  an  indisputable  truth  that  there  can  be  no  such  being 
as  a  born  legislator.  As  unquestionable  is  the  fact  that  there  may 
be  a  born  ass. 

We  are  not  proving  that  fact — only  stating  it — pace  your  word- 
snapper  on  the  look-out  for  a  snap. 

But  your  born  ass  may  be  born  to  your  legislator’s  office,  and 
command  a  seat  in  the  house  of  legislators  by  inheritance,  as  in  not 
a  few  examples,  wherein  the  coronet  hides  not  the  donkey’s  ears. 

The  object  of  a  Reform  in  the  House  of  Lords  should  be  to 
keep  the  asinines  of  the  aristocracy  out  of  it :  so  that  the  business 
of  the  country  may  be  no  more  impeded  by  their  braying,  or  harmed 
by  their  kicking. 

Nobody  is  a  physician  by  birth.  Even  the  seventh  son  of  a 
seventh  son  must  undergo  an  examination  before  he  is  allowed  to 
prescribe  a  dose  of  physic  for  an  old  woman. 

But  any  eldest  son,  or  other  male  relation,  of  a  person  of  a 
certain  order  is  chartered,  as  such,  to  physic  the  body  corporate  : 
which  is  absurd. 

Now,  the  Reform  we  propose  for  the  House  of  Lords,  is,  not 
to  admit  any  person,  whose  only  claim  to  membership  is  that  of 
having  been  born  a  Peer,  to  practise  his  profession  without 
examination. 

Examine  him  in  the  Alphabet — there  have  been  Peers  who  didn’t 
know  that.  In  reading,  writing,  and  arithmetic :  you  already  make 

204 


Educating  the  House  of  Lords 


a  Lord — the  Mayor  of  London — count  hobnails.  In  history — for  he 
is  to  help  furnish  materials  for  its  next  page.  In  geography, 
astronomy,  and  the  use  of  the  globes ;  which,  being  indispensable  to 
ladies,  are  a  fortiori  to  be  required  of  Lords.  In  political  economy, 
the  physiology  of  the  Constitution  which  he  will  have  to  treat.  In 
medicine,  that  he  may  understand  the  analogies  of  national  and 


APPROPRIATE 


FIRST  Citizen:  “I  say,  Bill — I  wonder  what  he  calls  hisself?" 

Second  Ditto:  “  Blowed  if  I  know! — but  I  calls  him  a  Bloated  Haristo- 
crat.” 

individual  therapeutics ;  and  also  learn  not  to  patronize  homoeopaths 
and  other  quacks.  In  geology,  that  he  may  acquire  a  philosophical 
idea  of  pedigree,  by  comparing  the  bones  of  his  ancestors  with  those 
of  the  ichthyosaurus,  or  the  foundation  of  his  house  with  the  granite 
rocks.  In  the  arts  and  sciences,  generally,  which  it  will  be  his 
business  to  promote,  if  he  does  his  business.  In  literature,  that  he 
may  cultivate  it ;  at  least,  respect  it,  and  stand  up  for  the  liberty 

205 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


of  unlicensed  printing',  instead  of  insulting  and  calumniating  the 
Press. 

This  is  our  scheme  of  Peerage  Reform,  to  which  the  principal 
objection  we  anticipate  is,  that  it  is  impracticable,  because  it  can’t 
be  done  ;  and  that,  warned  by  the  confusion  and  disorder  that  has 
resulted  from  change  in  foreign  nations,  we  should  shrink  from 
touching  a  time-honoured  institution ;  which  is  as  much  as  to  say, 
that  because  our  neighbours  have  divided  their  carotid  arteries,  we 
had  better  not  shave  ourselves. 

To  “most  noble  fatuities,”  “Lord  White  Sticks,”  privileged 
gamblers,  extravagant  guardsmen,  pluralists  (among  whom  the 
Greys  and  Elliots  are  specially  attacked),  and  their  fulsome 
upholders  in  the  Press,  scant  mercy  is  shown.  Some  exceptions 
are  made  :  Lord  Mahon  for  his  interest  in  the  drama  and  art; 
Lord  Albemarle  for  his  views  on  the  Reform  of  the  Marriage 
Laws;  Lord  St.  Leonards  for  cutting  down  Chancery  pleadings 
and  all  the  “awful  and  costly  machinery  of  word  spinning” 
connected  therewith.  With  Lord  Brougham,  wrho  was  so 
long  one  of  Punch’s  favourite  butts,  we  deal  elsewhere.  But 
neither  he  nor  Sugden  (Lord  St.  Leonards)  belonged  to  the 
“Old  Nobility”;  they  wrere  not  ranked  with  the  “snobbish 
peers  ”  who  opposed  the  education  of  the  masses  or  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  a  Minister  of  Education,  or  wanted  to  keep  poor 
children  out  of  the  London  parks,  a  topic  referred  to  more 
than  once. 

Aristocratic  nepotism  is  another  favourite  theme  of  satire  : 
the  classic  example  being  furnished  by  the  famous  telegram 
sent  during  the  Crimean  War  by  Lord  Panmure,  when  Secretary 
for  War,  to  Lord  Raglan:  “Take  care  of  Dowb.”  “Dowb.” 
was  Captain  Dowbiggin,  a  relative  of  Lord  Panmure’s.  Hence 
the  epigram  :  — 


CE  N’EST  QUE  LE  PREMIER  PAS  QUI  COUTE 

“The  reform  of  our  army,”  should  Panmure  ask,  “how  begin?  ” 
“By  not  taking,”  says  Punch,  “quite  so  much  care  of  Dowbiggin.” 


With  Bulwer  Lytton  a  long  feud  was  maintained,  but  it  was 
not  as  a  peer  but  as  a  writer  and  a  sophisticated  snob  that  he 

206 


Thackeray  on  Great  Folks 


earned  the  dislike  of  Punch,  who  published  (February  28,  1846) 
Tennyson’s  retort  on  his  traducer.  In  later  years,  however,  a 
complete  reconciliation  took  place. 

Punch  saw  no  inherent  virtue  in  peers  or  peerages.  He 
welcomed  the  bestowal  of  one  on  Macaulay;  he  applauded  the 
decision  of  Peel’s  family  in  declining  the  honour  after  his  death. 
Mentions  by  name  of  noble  personages  in  his  pages  in  this 
period  are  more  often  hostile  than  friendly.  He  agreed  with 
Tennyson  that  “kind  hearts  are  more  than  coronets,”  but 
he  was  far  from  maintaining  that  they  were  incompatible. 
Thackeray,  who,  as  we  know,  did  not  see  eye  to  eye  with 
Douglas  Jerrold,  and  found  his  constant  anti-aristocratic  in¬ 
vective  tiresome,  redressed  the  balance,  notably  in  “Mr.  Brown’s 
Letters  to  a  Young  Man  about  Town.”  Discoursing  on  good 
women,  in  whose  company  you  can’t  think  evil,  he  says  you 
may  find  them  in  the  suburbs  and  Mayfair,  and,  again  : — - 

The  great  comfort  of  the  society  of  great  folks  is  that  they  do 
not  trouble  themselves  about  your  twopenny  little  person,  as  smaller 
persons  do,  but  take  you  for  what  you  are — a  man  kindly  and  good- 
natured,  or  witty  and  sarcastic,  or  learned  and  eloquent,  or  a  good 
raconteur,  or  a  very  handsome  man,  or  an  excellent  gourmand  and 
judge  of  wine — or  what  not.  Nobody  sets  you  so  quickly  at  your 
ease  as  a  fine  gentleman.  I  have  seen  more  noise  made  about  a 
Knight’s  lady  than  about  the  Duchess  of  Fitz-Battleaxe  herself ; 
and  Lady  Mountararat,  whose  family  dates  from  the  Deluge,  enter 
and  leave  a  room,  with  her  daughters  the  lovely  Ladies  Eve  and 
Lilith  D’Arc,  with  much  less  pretension,  and  in  much  simpler  capotes 
and  what-do-you-call-’ems,  than  Lady  de  Mogins,  or  Mrs.  Shindy, 
who  quit  an  assembly  in  a  whirlwind,  with  trumpets  and  alarums 
like  a  stage  King  and  Queen. 


207 


SOCIETY— EXCLUSIVE,  GENTEEL,  AND 
SHABBY  GENTEEL 


FOR  the  manners  and  customs  of  High  Life  in  the  ’forties 
and  ’fifties  Punch  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  first-rate 
authority  for  the  excellent  reason  that,  with  the  exception 
of  Thackeray,  none  of  the  staff  had  the  entree  to  these  exalted 
circles.  They  were  busy,  hard-worked,  often  over-worked, 
journalists  and  officials,  and  their  recreations  and  diversions  did 
not  bring  them  into  intimate  contact  with  the  dwellers  in  May- 
fair  or  Belgravia.  They  kept  a  watchful  eye  upon  the  extrava¬ 
gances  and  vagaries  of  High  Life,  but  mainly  as  it  revealed 
itself  in  its  public  form  or  in  politics.  In  the  study  of  the 
Geology  of  Society,  which  appeared  in  one  of  his  earliest  num¬ 
bers,  Punch  subdivides  the  three  main  strata  of  Society — High 
Life,  Middle  Life,  Low  Life — into  various  classes.  The 
superior,  or  St.  James’s  series,  contains  people  wearing  coro¬ 
nets,  related  to  coronets,  expecting  coronets.  Thence  we  pass 
to  the  Russell  Square  group,  and  the  Clapham  group,  and 
thence  to  the  “inferior  series”  resident  in  Whitechapel  and  St. 
Giles,  and  it  was  of  these  groups,  especially  the  transitional, 
genteel  and  shabby  genteel,  that  Punch,  in  his  earliest  days, 
had  most  first-hand  knowledge. 

The  exclusiveness  of  fashionable  society  cannot  be  better 
illustrated  than  by  the  existence  of  such  an  institution  as 
Almack’s.  It  was  nothing  less  than  a  stroke  of  genius  on  the 
part  of  that  shrewd  Scot  from  Galloway — Almack  is  said  to 
have  been  an  inversion  of  his  real  name,  MacCaul,  though 
another  account  of  his  origin  represents  him  as  a  Yorkshire 
Quaker — who  came  to  London  as  a  valet  to  the  Duke  of  Hamil¬ 
ton,  and,  soon  after  starting  Almack’s  Club,  a  fashionable 
resort  for  aristocratic  gamblers,  afterwards  merged  in  Brooks’s, 
opened  the  famous  Assembly  Rooms  in  King  Street,  St. 

208 


Almack' s 


James’s,  where,  for  more  than  seventy-five  years,  weekly  sub¬ 
scription  balls  were  held  during  the  twelve  weeks  of  the  London 
season.  Almack  gave  his  name  to  the  Assembly  Rooms,  but 
the  management  was  entirely  vested  in  the  hands  of  a  com¬ 
mittee  of  lady  patronesses  of  the  highest  rank  and  fashion,  who 
distributed  the  ten-guinea  tickets.  By  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century  it  was  “the  seventh  heaven  of  the  fashion¬ 
able  world  to  be  introduced  to  Almack’s.”  Grantley  Berkeley, 
who  frequented  the  Assembly  Rooms  in  their  golden  prime, 
speaks  of  the  committee  as  “a  feminine  oligarchy,  less  in 
number,  but  equal  in  power  to  the  Venetian  Council  of  Ten.” 
They  issued  the  tickets  “for  the  gratification  of  the  creme  de 
la  creme  of  Society,  with  a  jealous  watchfulness  to  prevent  the 
intrusion  of  the  plebeian  rich  or  the  untitled  vulgar;  and  they 
drew  up  a  code  of  laws,  for  the  select  who  received  invitations, 
which  they,  at  least,  meant  to  be  as  unalterable  as  those  of  the 
Medes  and  Persians.”  1  Great  care  was  taken  that  the  supply  of 
debutantes  should  not  exceed  the  demand,  and  so  many  en¬ 
gagements  were  entered  into  to  the  accompaniment  of  Collinet’s 
band  that  Almack’s  was  regarded  as,  perhaps,  the  greatest 
matrimonial  market  of  the  aristocracy.  The  maximum  attend¬ 
ance  recorded  was  seventeen  hundred.  Almack  himself  died  in 
1781,  bequeathing  the  Assembly  Rooms  to  his  niece,  who 
married  Willis,  after  whom  they  were  subsequently  named.  By 
1840  their  glory  had  largely  departed,  but  so  serious  a  review 
as  the  Quarterly  wrote  respectfully  of  their  decline  :  “The  palmy 
days  of  exclusiveness  are  gone  by  in  England.  Though  it  is 
obviously  impossible  to  prevent  any  given  number  of  persons 
from  congregating  and  re-establishing  an  oligarchy,  we  are 
quite  sure  that  the  attempt  would  be  ineffectual,  and  that  the 
sense  of  their  importance  would  extend  little  beyond  the  set.” 
Yet  Almack’s  lingered  for  several  years.  In  its  august  precincts, 
which  had  welcomed  and  sanctioned  the  waltz  (originally  con¬ 
demned  as  an  unseemly  exhibition),  the  ravages  of  the  successor 
of  the  waltz  and  quadrille — the  polka — are  described  by  Punch 
(after  Byron)  in  the  lament  of  the  sentimental  young  lady  at 
the  close  of  the  season  of  1844.  The  craze  for  dancing  was  not 
1  Vide  Grantley  Berkeley’s  Recollections. 

209 


0-1 


210 


Polkamanici 


so  widely  diffused  as  in  1920,  but  to  judge  from  the  “History, 
Symptoms,  and  Progress  of  the  Polkamania,”  all  strata  of 
Society  were  affected  :  — 

That  obstinate  and  tormenting  disease,  the  Polkamania,  is  said 
to  have  originated  in  Bohemia ;  in  consequence,  we  may  presume 
from  analogy,  of  the  bite  of  some  rabid  insect  like  the  Tarantula 
Spider,  although  the  Polka  Spider  has  not  yet  been  described  by 
entomologists ;  but,  when  discovered,  it  probably  will  be  under  the 
name  of  Aranea  Polkapoietica.  The  Polkamania,  after  raging 
fiercely  for  some  time  in  the  principal  cities  of  the  Continent,  at 
length  made  its  appearance  in  London,  having  been  imported  by 
M.  Jullien,  who  inoculated  certain  Countesses  and  others  with  its 
specific  virus,  which  he  is  said  to  have  obtained  from  a  Bohemian 
nobleman.  The  form  of  its  eruption  was  at  first  circular,  corre¬ 
sponding  to  the  circles  of  fashion ;  but  it  has  now  extended  to  the 


aho  CvsToM-s  or  VflGLYSHE  •  it!  •  184-9 


2  1 1 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Mociern  Engl  mid 


whole  body  of  society,  including  its  lowest  members.  Its  chief 
symptoms  are  extraordinary  convulsions  and  wild  gesticulations  of 
the  limbs,  with  frequent  stampings  on  the  floor,  and  rotatory  move¬ 
ments  of  the  body,  such  as  accompany  lesions  of  the  cerebellum. 
That  part  is  said  by  Gall  to  be  the  organ  of  amativeness ;  and  the 
Polka  delirium,  in  several  instances,  has  terminated  in  love-madness. 
This  form  of  mania,  in  the  female  subject,  displays  itself,  partly, 
in  a  passion  for  fantastic  finery  ;  as  fur  trimmings,  red,  green  and 
yellow  boots,  and  other  strange  bedizenments.  Articles  of  dress, 
indeed,  seem  capable  of  propagating  the  contagion;  for  there  are 
Polka  Pelisses  and  Polka  Tunics;  now,  it  was  but  the  other  day 
that  we  met  with  some  Polka  Wafers,  so  that  the  Polkamania  seems 
communicable  by  all  sorts  of  things  that  put  it  into  people’s  heads. 
In  this  respect  it  obviously  resembles  the  Plague  ;  but  not  in  this 
respect  only  ;  for,  go  where  you  will,  you  are  sure  to  be  plagued 
with  it.  After  committing  the  greatest  ravages  in  London  itself, 
it  attacked  the  suburbs,  whence  it  quickly  spread  to  remote  districts, 
and  there  is  now  not  a  hamlet  in  Great  Britain  which  it  does  not 
infest  more  or  less.  Its  chief  victims  are  the  young  and  giddy ; 
but  as  yet  it  has  not  been  known  to  prove  fatal,  although  many, 
ourselves  included,  have  complained  of  having  been  bored  to  death 
by  it.  No  cure  has  as  yet  been  proposed  for  Polkamania;  but 
perhaps  an  antidote,  corresponding  to  vaccination,  in  the  shape  of 
some  new  jig  or  other  variety  of  the  caper,  may  prove  effectual  : 
yet,  after  all,  it  may  be  doubted  if  the  remedy  would  not  be  worse 
than  the  disease. 

Very  little  change  would  be  needed  to  fit  the  above  to  the 
Jazzmania  of  to-day.  The  polka  had  a  long  innings.  When 
the  ’forties  opened,  the  waltz  and  the  quadrille  were  firmly 
entrenched  in  fashionable  favour.  The  waltz,  as  we  write,  shows 
signs  of  rearing  its  diminished  head,  but  the  quadrille,  in  those 
days  a  most  elaborate  business  with  a  variety  of  figures — La 
Pastorale,  L’Et6,  La  Trenitz,  La  Poule,  etc. — is  dead  beyond 
redemption.  But  the  polka  mania  raged  with  little  abatement 
for  a  good  ten  years.1  In  1844,  amongst  other  advertisements 
of  teachers  of  the  art  of  dancing,  was  that  of  a  young  lady  who 
had  been  instructed  by  a  Bohemian  nobleman.  In  spite  of 
much  ridicule  and  many  appeals  (in  which  Thackeray  joined) 

1  A  correspondent  wrote  to  The  Times  in  1846  complaining  that  at  Ramsgate 
“  the  ladies  dance  polkas  in  their  bathing  dresses,”  and  suggesting  a  stricter 
supervision  of  the  proprieties  by  policemen. 

212 


Modish  Futilities 


for  the  suppression  of  the  pest,  the  malady  was  described  as 
still  acute  in  the  dog-days  of  1856,  and,  in  more  subdued  phases, 
lasted  for  another  fifty  years.  The  mazurka  also  came  into 
vogue  in  the  mid-’forties,  but  was  never  a  serious  rival  to  the 
polka  in  its  prime.  It  was  an  age  of  famous  professional 
dancers — Tagiioni  (who  gave  her  name  to  an  overcoat),  Fanny 
Ellsler,  Cerito,  and  Grisi,  the  cousin  of  the  ^rima-donna;  but 
though  there  were  schools  of  dancing,  and  Thes  dansanls,  which 
Punch  heavily  ridiculed,  and  though  the  fashionables  occa¬ 
sionally  secured  the  exclusive  use  of  the  lawns  at  Cremorne, 
there  was  no  competition  between  amateurs  and  professionals, 
as  in  modern  times.  The  latter  were  left  the  monopoly  of  the 
higher  flights  of  the  art.  Besides  the  polka,  the  accomplish¬ 
ments  of  the  young  lady  of  fashion  were  mainly  decorative.  If 
they  did  not  toil  or  spin,  at  least  they  occupied  themselves  with 
fancy  knitting,  crochet,  and  the  practice  of  Poonah  painting — 
an  early  and  crude  imitation  of  Oriental  art,  so  popular  that  the 
advertisements  of  instructors  in  “Indian  Poonah  painting” 
figure  in  the  newspapers  and  directories  of  the  time.  The 
fashionable  pets  were  spaniels,  macaws,  and  Persian  cats.  The 
prevailing  tastes  in  art  and  letters  in  fashionable  or  genteel 
society  are  (allowing  for  a  little  exaggeration)  not  badly  hit  off 
in  a  paper  on  the  Natural  History  of  Courtship,  giving  hints 
for  the  nice  conduct  of  conversation  at  a  social  gathering  :  — 

It  hath  been  wisely  ordained,  wherever  two  individuals  of  opposite 
sexes  are  standing  side  by  side,  that  during  the  pauses  of  “the 
figure,”  or  otherwise,  the  gentleman  shall  ask  the  lady  if  she  be 
fond  of  dancing;  the  reply  will  be,  “Yes,  very,”  for  it  is  known 
to  be  an  unvarying  rule  that  all  young  ladies  are  fond  of  dancing. 
That,  therefore,  affords  no  clue,  nor  indeed  much  subject  for  con¬ 
verse  ;  hence  another  question  succeeds,  “Are  you  fond  of  music?  ” 
Answer,  without  exception,  “Yes  — general  rule  as  before  ;  but  when 
the  rejoinder  comes,  “What  instrument  do  you  play?”  although  the 
reply  in  that  case  always  made  and  provided  is  “the  piano,”  yet 
the  mention  of  a  few  composers’  names  will  soon  inform  you 
of  the  kind  of  musical  taste  the  fair  one  possesses.  If  she  admire 
Herz,  you  will  know  she  belongs  to  the  thunder-and-lightning 
school  of  “  fine  players  ” ;  therefore,  breathe  not  the  names  of 
Mozart,  Beethoven,  or  Cramer.  Should  she  own  to  singing,  and  call 

213 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


Mercadante  “grand”  or  Donizetti  “exquisite,”  do  not  mention 
Weber  or  Schubert,  but  say  a  word  or  two  for  Alexander  Lee.1 

It  will  frequently  occur  that  (always  excepting  the  first  two 
queries)  a  young  lady  will  answer  your  questions  with  indifference 
— almost  contempt — in  the  belief  that  you  are  a  very  commonplace 
soulless  person.  She  has,  you  will  find,  a  tinge  of  romance  in 
her  character;  therefore,  lose  not  a  moment  in  plunging  over  head- 
and-ears  into  a  talk  about  poetry.  Should  Byron  or  Wordsworth 
fail,  try  T.  K.  Hervey,  or  Barry  Cornwall,  but  Moore  is  most 
strongly  recommended.  If  you  think  you  can  trust  yourself  to  do 
a  little  poetry  on  your  own  account,  dash  it  slightly  with  meta¬ 
physics.  Wherever  you  discover  a  tinge  of  blueism  or  romance, 
the  mixture  of  “the  moon,”  “the  stars,”  and  “the  human  mind,” 
with  common  conversation  is  highly  efficacious.  When  the  latter 
predominates  in  the  damsel,  an  effective  parting  speech  may  be 
quoted  from  Romeo  and  Juliet,  which  will  bring  in  a  reflection  upon 
the  short  duration  of  the  happiness  you  have  enjoyed,  and  the 
quotation  : 

“I  never  knew  a  young  gazelle,”  etc. 

This  was  written  in  Punch  in  July,  1842,  but  there  is  not 
much  difference  in  the  estimate  of  the  feminine  intellect  given 
ten  years  later  :  — 

HOW  TO  “FINISH”  A  DAUGHTER 

x.  Be  always  telling  her  how  pretty  she  is. 

2.  Instil  into  her  mind  a  proper  love  of  dress. 

3.  Accustom  her  to  so  much  pleasure  that  she  is  never  happy 
at  home. 

4.  Allow  her  to  read  nothing  but  novels. 

5.  Teach  her  all  the  accomplishments,  but  none  of  the  utilities 
of  life. 

6.  Keep  her  in  the  darkest  ignorance  of  the  mysteries  of  house¬ 
keeping. 

7.  Initiate  her  into  the  principle  that  it  is  vulgar  to  do  anything 
for  herself. 

8.  To  strengthen  the  latter  belief,  let  her  have  a  lady’s  maid. 

9.  And  lastly,  having  given  her  such  an  education,  marry  her  to 

1  George  Alexander  Lee  (1802-51),  son  of  a  London  publican  and  pugilist, 
“  tiger  ”  to  Lord  Barrymore,  and  subsequently  tenor  singer,  music  seller, 
lessee  of  Drury  Lane,  composer  and  music  director  at  the  Strand  and  Olympic 
Theatres.  Among  his  many  songs  and  ballads,  popular  in  their  day,  were 
“  Away,  Away  to  the  Mountain’s  Brow,”  “  The  Macgregor’s  Gathering,”  and 
“  Come  where  the  Aspens  Quiver.” 


214 


“  Finishing ”  a  Daughter 


a  clerk  in  the  Treasury  upon  ^75  a  year,  or  to  an  ensign  who  is 
going  out  to  India. 

If,  with  the  above  careful  training,  your  daughter  is  not  finished, 
you  may  be  sure  it  is  no  fault  of  yours,  and  you  must  look  upon  her 
escape  as  nothing  short  of  a  miracle. 

The  “higher  education  ”  of  women  was  not  discussed  in 
these  days  of  Keepsakes  and  Books  of  Beauty,  though,  as  we 


SPORTING  Man  (loquitur):  “1  say,  Charles,  that's  a  promising  little  filly  along 
o’  that  bay-haired  woman  who’s  talking  to  the  black-cob-looking  man.’’ 


have  seen,  the  official  recognition  of  learned  women  and  author¬ 
esses — Mrs.  Somerville  and  Maria  Edgeworth — was  supported 
by  Punch.  In  his  “Letters  to  a  Young  Man  about  Town,” 
Thackeray  frequently  insists  on  the  refining  influence  of  good 
women  in  Society,  but  intellectual  ladies  met  with  little  en¬ 
couragement  from  his  pen  or  pencil ;  he  liked  to  see  women  at 
dinners,  regretted  their  early  departure,  and  suggested  that  the 
custom  of  the  gentlemen  remaining  behind  might  be  modified 
if  not  abolished;  “the  only  substitute  for  them  or  consolation 
for  the  want  of  them  is  smoking.” 

Punch  castigates  the  caprice  of  flirts,  while  admitting  their 

215 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


fascination.  He  ridicules  the  imaginary  ailments  of  fashionable 
women  exhausted  by  gaiety;  but  he  waxes  bitterly  indignant 
over  “the  Old  Bailey  ladies”  who  obtained  access  to  the  chapel 
at  Newgate  to  listen  to  the  “condemned  sermon”  in  the 
presence  of  a  convicted  murderer,  or  scrambled  for  seats  at 
the  trials  of  notorious  malefactors.  The  only  excuse  for 
this  odious  curiosity  was  that  their  menfolk  set  the  women 
the  worst  possible  example.  Executions  were  public,  and 
were  freely  patronized  by  the  nobility  and  gentry.  The 
most  powerful  of  the  Ingoldsby  Legends  deals  with  this  ugly 
phase  of  early  Victorian  manners,  and  can  be  verified  from 
the  pages  of  Punch,  who  tells  us  how,  on  the  occasion  of  an 
execution  in  June,  1842  :  — 

All  the  houses  opposite  to  the  prison  (Old  Bailey)  had  been  let 
to  sight-seeking  lovers  at  an  enormous  price,  and,  in  several  instances, 
the  whole  of  the  casements  were  taken  out  and  raised  seats  erected 
for  their  accommodation.  In  one  case  a  noble  lord  was  pointed 
out  to  the  reporter  as  having  been  a  spectator  at  the  last  four  or 
five  executions  :  his  price  for  his  seat  was  said  to  be  fifteen  pounds. 

The  “Model  Fast  Lady”  liked  champagne,  but  the  charge 
of  indulgence  in  the  pleasures  of  the  table  is  never  brought 
against  women  of  fashion.  Their  extravagance  in  dress  is  often 
rebuked;  but  lovely  woman,  if  left  to  herself,  in  the  ’forties  and 
’fifties,  was  probably  content  to  subsist  (as  according  to  R.  L. 
Stevenson  she  subsisted  forty  or  fifty  years  later)  mainly  on  tea 
and  cake.  Women  were  not  exempt  from  the  accusation  of 
snobbery  :  sarcastic  comment  is  prompted  by  the  letter  of  a 
correspondent  to  the  Morning  Post,  who  wrote  to  describe  how, 
as  the  result  of  a  railway  accident,  she,  “a  young  lady  of  some 
birth,  was  placed  in  a  cornfield  and  had  to  wait  six  hours.” 

The  brunt,  however,  of  the  social  satire  was  borne  by  the 
men.  Glutton v  was  ever  a  male  vice,  and  Punch  is  constantly 
running  a  tilt  against  civic  gourmands  and  turtle-guzzling 
aldermen.  But  his  censure  was  not  confined  to  the  gross  orgies 
of  the  City  Fathers  at  a  time  when  cholera  and  typhus  were 
rampant.  “Everybody  lives  as  if  he  had  three  or  four 
thousand  a  year,”  is  his  dictum,  which  he  follows  up  by  plead- 

216 


Verrey  and  Gunter 


ing  for  more  simple  and  frequent  dinners,  the  entertainment 
of  poor  friends  and  relations — more  hospitality  and  less 
show.  The  “nobility  and  gentry”  did  not,  however,  court 
publicity  in  their  entertainments  as  in  a  later  age.1  They  dined 
sumptuously  in  their  own  houses;  there  were  few  expensive 
restaurants  in  those  days  or  for  many  years  to  come.  The 


fUfinners  «rd  Cvstomsof  /•  Qnglysfie 


nearest  approach  was  Verrey’s  Cafe,  which  was  then  a  fashion¬ 
able  resort,  and  the  immortal  Gunter,  who  “to  parties  gave  up 
what  was  meant  for  mankind.”  “Society  ”  was  small,  unmixed, 
and  exclusive.  Neither  love  nor  money  could  secure  the 
“Spangle-Lacquers  ”  (under  which  title  Punch  satirizes  the  pre- 

1  Who's  Who  first  appeared  in  1849.  In  those  days  it  was  little 
more  than  a  bare  list  of  dignitaries  and  officials.  It  was  not  until  1897  that 
the  personal  note  was  sounded  and  details  added  which  have  swelled  the  slim 
volume  to  its  present  portentous  bulk. 

217 


Mr.  Punch s  History  0/  Modern  England 


tensions  of  the  New  Rich),  the  entree  to  Almack’s.  For  club 
life  a  mine  of  useful  information  is  to  be  found  in  Thackeray’s 
“Letters  to  a  Young  Man  about  Town  ”  and  in  the  social  car¬ 
toons  of  Richard  Doyle.  The  account  of  a  club  cardroom  and 
the  absorption  and  obsession  of  the  players  needs  little  revision 
to  fit  the  manners  of  to-day,  and  there  is  much  excellent  advice 
to  young  men  to  avoid  roystering  and  drinking  with  “Old 
Silenus,”  the  midnight  monarch  of  the  smoking-room  at  the 
Polyanthus.  From  Thackeray’s  contributions  we  have  borrowed 
sparingly,  but  cannot  refrain  from  quoting  the  passage  in  which 
he  pays  noble  homage  to  the  genius  of  Dickens  :  — 

What  a  calm  and  pleasant  seclusion  the  library  presents  after 
the  brawl  and  bustle  of  the  newspaper-room  !  There  is  never  any¬ 
body  here.  English  gentlemen  get  up  such  a  prodigious  quantity 
of  knowledge  in  their  early  life  that  they  leave  off  reading  soon 
after  they  begin  to  shave,  or  never  look  at  anything  but  a  news¬ 
paper.  How  pleasant  this  room  is — isn’t  it?  with  its  sober  draperies, 
and  long  calm  lines  of  peaceful  volumes — nothing  to  interrupt  the 
quiet — only  the  melody  of  Horner’s  nose  as  he  lies  asleep  upon  one 
of  the  sofas.  What  is  he  reading?  Hah,  Pendennis,  No.  VII. — 
hum,  let  us  pass  on.  Have  you  read  David  Copperfield,  by  the 
way?  How  beautiful  it  is — how  charmingly  fresh  and  simple  !  In 
those  admirable  touches  of  tender  humour — and  I  should  call 
humour,  Bob,  a  mixture  of  love  and  wit — who  can  equal  this  great 
genius?  There  are  little  words  and  phrases  in  his  books  which  are 
like  personal  benefits  to  the  reader.  What  a  place  it  is  to  hold  in 
the  affections  of  men  !  What  an  awful  responsibility  hanging  over 
a  writer  !  What  man,  holding  such  a  place,  and  knowing  that  his 
words  go  forth  to  vast  congregations  of  mankind — to  grown  folks, 
to  their  children,  and  perhaps  to  their  children’s  children — but  must 
think  of  his  calling  with  a  solemn  and  humble  heart?  May  love  and 
truth  guide  such  a  man  always  !  It  is  an  awful  prayer;  may  Heaven 
further  its  fulfilment !  And  then,  Bob,  let  the  Record  revile  him 
— See,  here’s  Horner  waking  up — How  do  you  do,  Horner? 

Smoking  was  not  yet  a  national  habit.  It  was  the  height 
of  bad  form  to  be  seen  smoking  in  the  street.  Even  in  cluhs 
it  was  frowned  upon,  and  Thackeray,  in  his  “Snob  Papers,’’ 
writes  in  ironic  vein  respecting  “that  den  of  abomination 
which,  I  am  told,  has  been  established  in  some  clubs,  called 

218 


Tobacco  Tabooed 


the  Smoking  Room.”  The  embargo  on  pipes  was  not  re¬ 
moved  for  many  years.  A  well-known  judge  removed  his 
name  from  a  well-known  club  about  the  year  1890  because  the 
committee  refused  to  tolerate  pipe-smoking  on  their  precincts. 
Punch  early  ranged  himself  on  the  side  of  liberty,  and  in  1856 
was  greatly  incensed  against  the  British  Anti-Tobacco  Society, 
as  against  all  “Anti’s,”  “who,  not  content  with  hating  balls, 
plays,  and  other  amusements  themselves,  want  to  enforce 
their  small  antipathies  on  the  rest  of  us.” 

The  relaxations  of  men  of  fashion,  if  less  multitudinous  than 
to-day,  were  at  least  tolerably  varied.  The  golden  age  of  the 
dandies  had  passed,  but  the  breed  was  still  not  quite  extinct 
in  1849;  witness  Thackeray’s  picture  of  Lord  Hugo  Fitzurse. 
“Fops’  Alley,”  at  the  Opera,  was  one  of  their  favourite 
resorts;  and  its  attractions  are  summed  up,  during  the  season 


GROUP  IN  THEATRE  BOX 
219 


Mr .  Punch's  History  0/  Modern  England 


of  1844,  in  the  last  stanza  of  a  “Song  of  the  Superior 
Classes  ”  :  — 

Blest  ballet,  soul-entrancing, 

Who  would  not  rather  gaze 
On  youth  and  beauty  dancing 
Than  one  of  Shakespeare’s  plays? 

Give  me  the  haunt  of  Fashion, 

And  let  the  Drama’s  shrine 
Engross  the  vulgar’s  passion  ; 

Fops’  Alley,  thou  art  mine. 

Robuster  natures  found  distraction  in  knocker-wrenching 
and  organizing  parties  to  witness  executions,  but  it  would  be 
as  unfair  to  judge  the  manners  of  the  high  life  of  the  time 
from  the  exploits  of  the  mad  Marquess  of  Waterford  as  it 
would  be  to  base  one’s  estimate  on  the  achievements  of  Lord 
Shaftesbury.  Thackeray,  in  The  Newcomes,  written  in  1853, 
gives  a  somewhat  lurid  account  of  the  entertainment  at  the 
“Coal  Hole,”  from  which  the  indignant  colonel  abruptly  with¬ 
drew  with  his  son  Clive.  The  moral  atmosphere  of  “Cyder 
Cellars  ”  and  similar  places  of  entertainment  was  not  exactly 
rarefied,  but  Punch  makes  a  notable  exception  in  favour  of 
Evans’s  Supper  Rooms,  which  were  reopened  after  redecora¬ 
tion  in  the  year  1856  as  the  abode  of  supper  and  song.  There 
was  no  price  for  admission.  You  entered  by  a  descent  from 
the  western  end  of  the  Piazza,  Covent  Garden,  and  took  your 
choice  from  the  little  marble  tables  near  the  door  or  nearer  the 
raised  platform.  Punch’s  only  adverse  criticism  is  directed 
against  the  epileptic  gesticulations  of  the  Ethiopian  serenaders. 
Eor  the  rest  he  has  nothing  but  praise  for  the  entertainment, 
whether  for  mind  or  body  :  — 

Anybody  wanting  to  hear  a  little  good  music,  sup,  and  get  to 
bed  betimes  will  be  precisely  suited  at  this  place.  Singing  com¬ 
mences  at  eight.  Any  country  curate,  now,  or  indeed,  rector,  being 
in  town  under  those  circumstances,  would  find  it  just  answer  his 
purpose.  To  a  serious  young  man,  disapproving  of  the  Opera,  and 
tired  of  Exeter  Hall,  it  would  be  a  pleasant  change  from  the  last- 
named  institution.  Moreover  it  has  the  advantage  of  cheapness — 
so  important  to  all  who  are  truly  serious.  Even  a  bishop  might 


220 


Travellers  and  Outlaws 


give  it  an  occasional  inspection,  without  derogation  from  the  decorum 
of  his  shovel  hat  and  gaiters.  A  resort  whereat  unobjectionable 
amusement  is  provided  for  the  youthful  bachelor — the  student  of  law 
— of  medicine — nay,  of  divinity — offers  an  attraction  in  the  right 
direction  which  is  powerful  to  counteract  a  tendency  towards  the 
wrong  :  and  a  glass  of  grog,  with  the  accompaniment  of  good 
singing,  may  have  a  moral  value  superior  to  that  of  a  teetotal 
harangue  and  a  cup  of  Twankay.1 

The  cult  of  pastime  was  as  yet  in  its  infancy ;  years  were  to 
elapse  before  even  croquet  was  to  assert  its  gentle  sway.  But 
there  was  always  the  great  game  of  politics  and  patronage,  and 
though  Crockford,  the  founder  of  the  famous  gambling  club  at 
50,  St.  James’s  Street,  retired  in  1840,  after  he  had  won  “the 
whole  of  the  ready  money  of  the  existing  generation,”  in  Captain 
Gronow’s  phrase,  there  was  plenty  of  gambling  for  very  high 
stakes.  There  was  also  travel,  limited  in  its  larger  and  more 
leisurely  range  to  people  of  fortune,  but  already  beginning  to 
appeal  through  excursions  to  the  middle  classes.  “Paris  in 
twelve  hours  ”  was  advertised  by  the  South  Eastern  Railway 
in  1849,  though  according  to  Punch  it  really  took  twenty-nine 
hours;  but  before  long  the  time  occupied  in  the  transit  was 
reduced  to  nine  hours.  Boulogne  had  long  been  the  resort 
of  a  curious  colony  of  Englishmen  “composed  of  those  who 
are  living  on  their  means,  and  those  who  are  living  in  despite 
of  them,  including,  to  give  a  romantic  air  of  society,  a  slight 
sprinkling  of  outlaws.”  It  was  at  Boulogne-sur-Mer  that 
Brummell  ended  his  days  in  poverty;  but  the  most  famous 
outlaws  of  the  period  under  review  were  “the  most  gorgeous” 
Countess  of  Blessington  and  Count  D’Orsay,  who  fled  pre¬ 
cipitately  from  Gore  House  in  April,  1849,  to  Paris.  Nine  years 
earlier  Lady  Blessington  had  been  one  of  the  most  courted 
leaders  of  fashionable  society.  She  had  beauty,  fascination,  a 
fair  measure  of  literary  talent,  and  an  industry  only  surpassed 
by  her  extravagance.  Of  D’Orsay,  whom  Byron  called  the 
Cupidon  dechaine,  handsome,  gifted  and  popular,  athlete,  wit 
and  dandy,  it  is  enough  to  say  that  he  was  the  only  artist 

1  “  Twankay,”  constantly  used  at  this  time  as  an  equivalent  for  tea,  after  the 
name  of  the  district  of  Taung  Kei  in  China. 


221 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


congenial  to  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  who  used  to  call  sculp¬ 
tors  “damned  busters”  and  so  exasperated  Goya  by  his 
cavalier  treatment  that  the  old  Spanish  painter  is  alleged  to 
have  challenged  him  to  a  duel !  Lady  Blessington  and  D’Orsay 
escaped  censure  from  Punch  even  in  his  democratic  days.  It 
was  hard  to  be  angry  with  these  birds  of  Paradise,  gorgeous 
in  their  lives,  almost  tragic  in  their  eclipse.  They  at  any  rate 


THE  OPERA 

DOORKEEPER:  “Beg  your  pardon.  Sir — but  must,  indeed,  Sir,  be  in  full  dress.” 
SNOB  (excited):  “Full  dress!!  Why,  what  do  you  call  this?’’ 

r 

did  not  come  under  the  condemnation  meted  out  to  Cockney 
travellers  on  the  Continent  in  1845  :  — 

SMALL  CHANGE  FOR  PERSONS  GOING  ON  THE 
CONTINENT 

Laugh  at  everything  you  do  not  understand,  and  never  fail  to 
ridicule  anything  that  appears  strange  to  you.  The  habits  of  the 
lower  class  will  afford  you  abundant  entertainment,  if  you  have  the 
proper  talent  to  mimic  them.  Their  religious  ceremonies  you  will 
also  find  to  be  an  endless  source  of  amusement. 

Recollect  very  few  people  talk  in  English  on  the  Continent,  so 


222 


The  “Gent"  Abroad  and  at  Home 


you  may  be  perfectly  at  your  ease  in  abusing  foreigners  before 
their  faces,  and  talking  any  modest  nonsense  you  like,  in  the 
presence  of  ladies,  at  a  table  d’hdte.  Do  not  care  what  you  say 
about  the  government  of  any  particular  state  you  may  be  visiting, 
and  show  your  national  spirit  by  boasting,  on  every  possible  occasion, 
of  the  superiority  of  England  and  everything  English. 

The  criticism,  if  caustic,  was  not  without  provocation,  and 
unhappily  the  provocation  did  not  cease,  indeed,  it  may  not  be 
a  rash  assertion  to  observe  that  it  has  not  yet  altogether  ceased. 
The  type  reappeared  as  “  ’Arry.”  In  the  early  ’forties  he  was 
one  of  Punch’s  pet  aversions  under  the  title  of  “the  Gent”,: — 

Of  all  the  loungers  who  cross  our  way  in  the  public  thorough¬ 
fares,  the  Gent  is  the  most  unbearable,  principally  from  an  assump¬ 
tion  of  style  about  him — a  futile  aping  of  superiority  that  inspires 
us  with  feelings  of  mingled  contempt  and  amusement,  when  we 
contemplate  his  ridiculous  pretensions  to  be  considered  “the  thing.” 

No  city  in  the  world  produces  so  many  holiday  specimens  of 
tawdry  vulgarity  as  London  ;  and  the  river  appears  to  be  the  point 
towards  which  all  the  countless  myriads  converge.  Their  strenuous 
attempts  to  ape  gentility — a  bad  style  of  word,  we  admit,  but  one 
peculiarly  adapted  to  our  purpose — are  to  us  more  painful  than 
ludicrous ;  and  the  labouring  man,  dressed  in  the  usual  costume  of 
his  class,  is  in  our  eyes  far  more  respectable  than  the  Gent,  in  his 
dreary  efforts  to  assume  a  style  and  tournure  which  he  is  so  utterly 
incapable  of  carrying  out. 

Punch  was  a  sincere  lover  of  his  country  and  her  Constitu¬ 
tion.  When  foreigners  criticized  England  or  the  English  he 
was  up  in  arms  in  a  moment.  John  Bull,  he  declared,  a  propos 
of  the  suspicion  of  the  French  Government,  was  the  best  natured, 
most  kindly,  and  tolerant  fellow  in  the  world.  But  this  con¬ 
viction  never  stood  in  the  way  of  his  playing  the  candid  friend 
to  and  dealing  faithfully  with  his  countrymen  on  all  possible 
occasions.  As  a  comprehensive  indictment  of  their  failings  it 
would  be  hard  to  beat  or  to  improve  upon  the  following  list 
of  the  things  an  Englishman  likes:  — 

An  Englishman  likes  a  variety  of  things.  For  instance,  nothing 
is  more  to  his  liking  than  : 


223 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


To  talk  largely  about  Art,  and  to  have  the  worst  statues  and 
monuments  that  ever  disgraced  a  metropolis  ! 

To  inveigh  against  the  grinding  tyrannies  practised  upon  poor 
needlewomen  and  slop-tailors,  and  yet  to  patronize  the  shops  where 
cheap  shirts  and  clothes  are  sold  ! 

To  purchase  a  bargain,  no  matter  whether  he  is  in  want  of  it 
or  not  ! 

To  reward  native  talent,  with  which  view  he  supports  Italian 
operas,  French  plays,  German  singers,  and  in  fact  gives  gold  to  the 
foreigners  in  exchange  for  the  brass  they  bring  him  ! 

To  talk  sneeringly  against  tuft-hunting  and  all  tuft-hunters,  and 
yet  next  to  running  after  a  lord,  nothing  delights  him  more  than  to 
be  seen  in  company  with  one ! 

To  rave  about  his  public  spirit  and  independence,  and  with  the 
greatest  submission  to  endure  perpetually  a  tax 1  that  was  only 
put  on  for  three  years  ! 

To  brag  about  his  politeness  and  courteous  demeanour  in  public, 
and  to  scamper  after  the  Queen  whenever  there  is  an  opportunity 
of  staring  at  her  ! 

To  boast  of  his  cleanliness,  and  to  leave  uncovered  (as  in  the 
Thames)  the  biggest  sewer  in  the  world  ! 

To  pretend  to  like  music,  and  to  tolerate  the  Italian  organs  and 
the  discordant  musicians  that  infest  his  streets  ! 

To  inveigh  against  bad  legislation,  and  to  refrain  in  many 
instances  from  exercising  the  franchise  he  pays  so  dearly  for  ! 

To  admit  the  utility  of  education,  and  yet  to  exclude  from  its 
benefits  every  one  who  is  not  of  the  same  creed  as  himself ! 

And  lastly,  an  Englishman  dearly  likes  : 

To  grumble,  no  matter  whether  he  is  right  or  wrong,  crying  or 
laughing,  working  or  playing,  gaining  a  victory  or  smarting  under 
a  national  humiliation,  paying  or  being  paid — still  he  must  grumble, 
and  in  fact  he  is  never  so  happy  as  when  he  is  grumbling;  and, 
supposing  everything  was  to  his  satisfaction  (though  it  says  a  great 
deal  for  our  power  of  assumption  to  assume  any  such  absurd  im¬ 
possibilities),  still  he  would  grumble  at  the  fact  of  there  being  nothing 
for  him  to  grumble  about ! 

Punch  certainly  exercised  the  national  privilege  of  grumb¬ 
ling  to  the  full,  though  the  shafts  of  his  satire  were  sometimes 
of  the  nature  of  boomerangs.  We  can  sympathize  with  him 
when,  in  his  list  of  “things  and  persons  that  should  emigrate,” 

1  The  income  tax.  Punch  knew  better,  and  prophesied  from  the  very  outset 
that  it  would  never  come  off. 


224 


Desirable  Emigrants 


he  includes  “all  persons  who  give  imitations  of  actors;  all  quack 
doctors  and  advertising  professors;  all  young  men  who  smoke 
before  the  age  of  fifteen,  and  young  ladies  who  wear  ringlets 
after  the  age  of  thirty,”  as  fit  for  “dumping.”  But  he  runs 
the  risk  of  the  Quis  tulerit  Gracchos  retort  when  he  bans  “all 


OFFENDED  DIGNITY 

SMALL  Swell  (who  has  just  finished  a  quadrille) :  "  H’m,  thank  goodness 
that’s  over.  Don’t  give  me  your  bread-and-butter  Misses  to  dance  with — I 
prefer  grown  Women  of  the  World!” 

(N.B.  The  bread-and-butter  Miss  had  asked  him  how  old  he  was,  and  when 
he  went  back  to  school.) 

punsters  and  conundrum  makers.”  In  the  main  he  was  a 
strenuous  supporter  of  education,  especially  elementary  educa¬ 
tion,  and  the  recognition  and  reward  of  men  of  science  and 
letters,  but,  along  with  his  general  support  of  literary  and 
scientific  institutions,  he  seldom  missed  a  chance  of  making 
game  of  learned  societies,  beginning  with  the  British  Associa- 
p— l  225 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


tion.  The  ignorance  of  candidates  for  appointments  in  the 
Civil  Service  does  not  escape  his  reforming  zeal,  when  in  1857 
no  fewer  than  44  per  cent,  were  rejected  for  bad  spelling ; 
yet  in  1852  we  find  him  publishing  a  picture  of  a  Japanese 
as  a  black  man. 

Spiritualism  invaded  England  from  America  at  the  end  of 


TWO  WORDS  TO  A  BARGAIN 

JAPANESE:  “We  won't  have  Free  Trade.  Our  ports  are  closed,  and  shall 
remain  so.” 

AMERICAN  :  "  Then  we  will  open  our  ports,  and  convince  you  that  you're 
wrong.’’ 


the  ’forties;  the  mania  for  table-turning  dates  from  1852,  and 
in  1855  the  famous  “medium”  Daniel  Dunglas  Home  (the  ori¬ 
ginal  of  Browning’s  “Sludge”)  paid  his  first  visit  to  England. 
From  the  very  first  Punch’s  attitude  was  hostile,  sceptical,  even 
derisive;  and  he  was  one  of  the  first  to  condemn  the  harrying 
of  humble  fortune-tellers  while  fashionable  and  expensive  ex¬ 
ponents  of  clairvoyance  were  immune  from  prosecution.  Crystal- 
gazing  is  mentioned  in  1851.  Playing  upon  -words,  in  the 

226 


Exploiting  the  Dead 


Almanack  for  1852  we  read:  “It  is  related  as  astonishing  that 
there  are  some  clairvoyants  who  can  see  right  through  anybody ; 
but  that  is  not  so  very  strange.  The  wonder  is  that  there  should 
be  anybody  who  cannot  see  through  the  clairvoyant.”  In 
1853  it  was  seriously  suggested  by  a  mesmerist  in  the  Morning 
Post  that  he  could  get  into  communication  with  Sir  John 
Franklin;  this  Punch  promptly  pilloried,  as,  too,  a  little  later, 
he  did  a  reference  to  a  play  alleged  to  have  been  dictated 
by  Shakespeare’s  spirit.  In  1857  Punch  solemnly  vouches 
for  the  authenticity  of  the  following  advertisement  under  the 
heading  “Spirits  by  retail”: — 

COMMUNICATIONS  with  the  SPIRIT  OF  WASHINGTON 
for  Oracular  Revelation  of  public  fact  and  duty ;  responses  tendered 
relative  to  Executive  or  Governmental,  State  or  Diplomatic,  National 
or  Personal  questions  on  affairs  of  moment  for  their  more  ready  and 
appropriate  solution,  and  the  special  use  of  official,  Congressional 
and  editorial  intelligence.  Address  “Washington  Medium,”  Post 
Office,  Box  628,  Washington,  D.C.  No  letter  (except  for  an  inter¬ 
view)  will  be  answered  unless  it  encloses  one  dollar,  and  only  the 
first  five  questions  of  any  letter  with  but  one  dollar  will  have  a  reply. 
Number  your  questions  and  preserve  copies  of  them. 

Sober  and  instructed  opinion  has  always  shown  this  distrust, 
but  Punch  was  not  always  justified  in  his  treatment  of  new  arts 
and  discoveries.  He  quite  failed  to  recognize  the  importance 
and  the  possibilities  of  photography,  the  early  references  to  which 
are  uniformly  disparaging.  There  was  at  least  this  excuse  for 
his  want  of  foresight,  that  for  many  years  the  professional 
photographer  was  destitute  of  any  artistic  feeling  or  training 
save  in  the  purely  mechanical  side  of  his  calling.  In  repre¬ 
senting  him  as  combining  photography  wdth  hairdressing  or 
other  even  more  menial  trades,  Punch  was  not  indulging  in 
exaggeration .  The  mere  name  “photographer”  called  up  the 
image  of  a  seedy,  weedy  little  man  who  suggested  an  un¬ 
successful  artist  by  his  dress  and  whose  “studio  ”  was  a  shabby 
chamber  of  theatrical  horrors,  in  which  the  subject  was  clamped 
and  screwed  into  rigidity  by  instruments  of  torture.  In  the 
’fifties  photography  was  already  exploited  as  a  means  of  adver¬ 
tising  actors,  actresses  and  even  popular  preachers,  but  it 

227 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


had  not  begun  to  be  thought  of  as  a  means  of  social  reclame. 
Apart  from  politicians  and  public  characters  little  limelight  was 
shed  on  personality.  The  relations  between  the  Stage  and  Society 
were  curiously  different  from  those  which  prevail  to-day.  Punch 
was  a  great  champion  of  the  legitimate  drama.  Douglas 
Jerrold  had  been  a  prolific  and  successful,  though  not  prosper¬ 
ous,  playwright,  and  other  members  of  the  staff  had  written  for 
the  stage.  The  disregard  of  serious  native  talent  by  the  Court1 
and  the  fashionable  world  was  a  constant  theme  of  bitter  com¬ 
ment.  But  Punch  shows  no  eagerness  for  the  bestowal  of  official 
recognition  on  actors;  when  the  question  of  knighthoods  was 
mooted,  he  expressed  apprehension  lest  they  should  be  conferred 
upon  the  upholsterers  rather  than  the  upholders  of  the  Drama. 
With  that  form  of  mummer-worship  which  took  the  form  of 
the  publication  of  personal  gossip  about  actors  he  had  no 
sympathy,  and  even  satirized  it  in  a  burlesque  account  of  the 
daily  life  of  an  imaginary  low  comedian.  On  occasions 
when  actors  resented  the  tone  of  dramatic  criticism,  as  in  the 
quarrel  between  Charles  Mathews  and  the  Morning  Chronicle, 
Punch  stood  for  the  liberty  of  the  Press.  Against  sensational¬ 
ism,  horrors,  plays  based  on  crime,  and  the  cult  of  monstrosity 
Punch  waged  unceasing  war,  but  he  was  no  prude.  Those  who 
were  always  on  the  look  out  for  offence  were  sure  to  find  it : 
“certain  it  is  that  whenever  a  father  of  a  family  visits  a  theatre, 
something  verging  on  impropriety  takes  place.”  So  again 
he  falls  foul  of  the  inconsistent  prudery  which  allowed  a  per¬ 
formance  of  La  Dame  aux  Camelias  at  Exeter  Hall  in  1857, 
but  prohibited  an  English  translation  of  the  words. 

Many  of  the  broader  aspects  of  early  Victorian  social  life 
remain  with  us  to-day,  though  modified  or  amended.  “The 
broad  vein  of  plush  that  traverses  the  whole  framework  of 
English  society,”  as  Punch  flamboyantly  gibed,  if  not  wholly 
obliterated  is  at  least  less  conspicuous.  Jeames  and  Jenkins 

1  “  As  well  hope  to  touch,  Memnon-like,  the  statue  of  Queen  Anne  into 
mourning  music,  as  to  awaken  generous  impulses  in  the  House  of  Hanover 
towards  art,  or  science  or  letters.”  The  payment  of  13s.  4d.  each  to  actors  at 
a  Royal  Command  performance  provokes  a  sarcastic  reference  to  the  Court 
Almoner  Extraordinary. 


228 


‘  Punch's”  Respect  for  Decorum 


are  dead.  If  we  cannot  say  the  same  of  bullying  at  schools, 
“ragging  ”  in  the  Army,  the  unnecessary  expense  of  uniforms 
and  the  costly  pageantry  of  funerals — all  of  which  were  stren¬ 
uously  condemned  by  Punch — it  may  at  least  be  contended  that 


Scene:  A  Public-house,  Bury  St.  Edmunds,  after  the  Dinner  given  by  the  Mayor 
of  Bury  to  the  Lord  Mayor  of  London. 

Country  Footman  Pray,  Sir,  what  do  you  think  of  our  town?  A  nice 
place,  ain’t  it  ?  ” 

LONDON  Footman  (condescendingly);  “Veil,  Joseph,  I  likes  your  town  well 
enough.  It’s  clean;  your  streets  are  hairy;  and  you’ve  lots  of  rewins.  But  I 
don’t  like  your  champagne  ;  its  all  Gewsberry.” 


public  opinion  is  more  vigilant  in  arraigning  and  bringing  to 
light  offences  against  humanity,  good  taste  and  common  sense. 
Modern  critics  have  not  been  wanting  who  charge  Punch  with 
prudery  and  squeamishness,  but  this  is  not  the  place  to  discuss 
whether  the  popularity  of  the  paper  would  have  been  enhanced, 
or  its  influence  and  power  fortified  by  following  the  example  of 
La  Vie  Parisienne  or  of  Jiigend.  Certainly  during  the  period 
under  review  reticence  and  respectability  were  combined  on 

229 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


occasion  with  a  remarkable  freedom  of  comment,  and  the  tragedy 
of  “The  Great  Social  Evil”  was  frankly  admitted  in  Leech’s 
famous  picture.  1  hough  an  isolated  reference  it  was  worth  a 


THE  GREAT  SOCIAL  EVIL 

Time:  Midnight.  A  sketch  not  a  hundred  miles  from  the  Haymarket. 
BELLA:  “Ah!  Fanny!  How  long  have  you  been  Gay?” 


hundred  sermons.  If  Punch  preferred  to  be  the  champion  of 
domesticity  and  decorum  in  public  and  private  life,  he  was 
reflecting  an  essential  feature  of  the  age — a  feature  which  no 
longer  exists.  It  was  an  age  of  patriarchal  rule  and  large 

230 


Mr.  Quiverfull 


families.  Nothing  strikes  one  more  in  turning  over  the  pages 
of  old  numbers  of  Punch  than  the  swarms  of  young  people 
who  figure  in  the  domestic  groups  so  dear  to  John  Leech.  The 
numbers,  more  than  the  precocity  of  the  rising  generation, 
impress  the  reader.  The  type  represented  is  mainly  drawn 
from  well-to-do  middle-class  households,  but  all  classes  were 
prolific.  If  one  needs  proof,  there  is  the  evidence  of  Debrett 
and  of  the  tombstones  in  our  country  churchyards. 


A  FRESHENER  ON  THE  DOWNS 


231 


THE  LIBERAL  PROFESSIONS 


4  S  a  mirror  of  public  opinion  on  the  status  and  importance 
of  the  learned  and  liberal  professions  Punch,  when  due 
"“"allowance  has  been  made  for  his  limitations,  his  pre¬ 
judices  and  even  his  passions,  cannot  be  overlooked  by  the 
student  of  social  history.  A  whole  book  has  been  written  on 
his  attitude  towards  the  Church ;  in  another  section  of  this 
chronicle  I  have  dealt  at  some  length  with  his  hostility  to 
Pluralism,  Sabbatarianism,  Ritualism,  and  endeavoured  to 
show  how  a  generally  tolerant  and  “hang  theology”  attitude 
was  in  the  early  ’fifties  exchanged  for  one  of  fierce  anti- 
Vaticanism.  The  “No  Popery”  drum  was  banged  with  great 
fury,  and  when  the  Roman  Catholic  hierarchy  was  re¬ 
established  in  England  in  1850,  Punch  supported  the  Ecclesias¬ 
tical  Titles  Act  which  declared  the  assumption  of  titles  con¬ 
nected  with  places  in  the  realm  illegal  and  imposed  heavy 
penalties  on  the  persons  assuming  them.  This  Act,  passed  in 
1851,  remained  a  dead  letter  until  1871,  when  it  was  repealed. 
As  for  the  law  and  lawyers  the  record  of  Punch  is  more  con¬ 
sistent  and  creditable,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  he  was  from  the  first 
an  unflinching  advocate  of  cheap  justice  and  the  removal  of 
irregularities  which  pressed  hardest  on  the  poor,  an  unrelenting 
critic  of  barbarous  and  oppressive  penalties.  No  one  was  too 
great  or  small  to  escape  his  legal  pillory,  or  to  secure  recog¬ 
nition  for  reforming  zeal  or  humane  administration — from  Lord 
Brougham  and  Lord  St.  Leonards  down  to  unpaid  magistrates. 
To  what  has  been  said  elsewhere  it  may  be  added  that  the  series 
of  papers  written  by  Gilbert  h  Beckett,  under  the  heading  of 
“The  Comic  Blackstone,”  are  much  better  than  their  title,  for 
they  contain  a  good  deal  of  shrewd  satire  and  sound  sense. 
Punch  had  good  reason  to  be  proud  of  his  own  legal  represen¬ 
tative,  the  humane  and  genial  Gilbert  h.  Beckett.  He  welcomed 

232 


The  Bench  and  the  Universities 


Talfourd’s  promotion  to  the  Bench  as  an  honour  to  letters,  for 
Talfourd  was  not  only  the  executor  and  first  biographer  of 
Lamb  and  the  author  of  the  highly  successful,  but  now  for¬ 
gotten,  tragedy  of  Ion,  but  his  services  to  authors  in  connexion 
with  copyright  earned  for  him  the  dedication  of  Pickwick. 
On  his  death  in  1854,  Punch’s  elegy  fittingly  commemorated 
the  character  and  career  of  one  of  whom,  as  an  advocate,  it  was 
said  that  the  wrong  side  seldom  cared  to  hear  him,  and  who, 
like  Hood,  in  his  last  words,  deplored  the  mutual  estrangement 
of  classes  in  English  society. 

On  the  other  hand,  judges  who  jested  on  the  Bench,  indulged 
in  judicial  clap-trap,  or  encouraged  the  public  to  regard  the 
Courts  of  Justice  as  substitutes  for  theatrical  entertainments, 
are  severely  handled.  Judex  jocosus  odiosus;  but  the  type  is, 
apparently,  impervious  to  satire.  Another  anticipation  of  latter- 
day  criticism  is  to  be  found  in  the  remark  made  in  1856  :  “There 
was  once  a  Parliament — (we  do  not  live  in  such  times  now  !) — 
in  which  there  were  few  or  no  lawyers.”  Even  more  red-hot  in 
its  up-to-dateness  is  Punch’s  sarcastic  dismissal  of  the  cult  of 
“efficiency  ”  sixty-five  years  ago  :  — 

Mr.  Punch’s  reverence  for  the  business  powers  of  so-called  men 
of  business  is  not  abject.  The  “practical  men,”  who'  smile  com¬ 
passionately  at  schemers  and  visionaries,  are  the  men  who  perpetually 
make  the  most  frightful  smashes  and  blunders.  No  attorney,  for 
instance,  can  keep,  or  comprehend  accounts,  and  a  stock-jobber, 
the  supposed  incarnation  of  shrewdness,  is  the  most  credulous 
gebemouche  in  London. 

With  University  authorities,  professors,  dons,  and  academics 
generally,  we  look  in  vain  for  any  sign  of  sympathy,  save  that 
Punch  condemned  the  rule  which  then  prevented  Fellows  from 
marrying.  For  the  rest,  he  looked  on  the  older  Universities 
as  the  homes  of  mediaeval  obscurantism,  stubbornly  opposed  to 
reforms  long  overdue.  Of  the  two,  Oxford  fared  the  worse 
at  his  hands  on  account  of  the  Tractarian  movement,  Pusey,  and 
Newman.  This  antagonism  was  based  on  political  and  religious 
divergences,  not  on  any  hostility  to  learning  or  the  classical 
curriculum,  of  which  Punch  was  a  supporter,  to  the  extent  of 

233 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


printing  jeux  d’ esprit  in  Latin  and  Greek  in  his  pages.  All 
along  he  was  a  jealous  guardian  of  the  “illustrious  order  of  the 
goosequill,”  a  sturdy  champion  of  its  claims  to  adequate  pay 
and  official  recognition,  a  vigilant  critic  of  the  “homoeopathic 
system  of  rewards”  adopted  by  the  Crown  in  the  Civil  List. 
References  to  this  undying  scandal  are  honourably  frequent  in 
the  early  volumes  of  Punch.  It  may  suffice  to  quote  the  letter  to 
Lord  Palmerston  in  the  summer  of  1856  :  — 

I  will  not,  this  hot  weather,  weary  your  lordship  by  specifying- 
every  case,  but  will  sum  up  the  account  as  I  find  it  divided  : 


To  Science,  Literature,  and  Art  .  £275 

To  sundries  .  925 

^1,200 

Deduct  sundries  .  925 

£27S 

Due  to  Science,  Literature,  and  Art .  925 

Total  Civil  List . .£1,200 


Equally  creditable  is  the  reiterated  plea — from  1847  onward 
— for  the  establishment  of  International  Copyright,  to  guard 
English  authors  from  the  piracy  of  American  publishers, 
amongst  whom  Putnam  is  singled  out  as  an  honourable  excep¬ 
tion.  It  may  be  fairly  claimed  for  Punch  that  he  made  very  few 
mistakes  in  appraising  the  merits  of  the  authors  of  his  time  or 
of  the  rising  stars.  He  failed  to  render  justice  to  Disraeli  as 
a  writer,  and  he  curtly  dismissed  Walt  Whitman’s  Leaves  of 
Grass  as  “a  mad  book  by  an  American  rough.”  But  literary 
values  prove  him  substantially  right  in  his  distaste  for  the 
flamboyant  exuberance  of  Bulwer  Lytton,  and  absolutely  sound 
in  his  castigation  of  the  tripe-and-onionv  flavour  of  Samuel  War¬ 
ren’s  books,  one  of  which  he  held  up  to  not  undeserved  obloquy 
under  the  ferocious  misnomer  of  “The  Diarrhoea  of  a  Late 
Physician.”  He  was  a  veritable  malleus  stultorum  in  dealing 
alike  with  the  futilities  of  incompetent  aristocrats  and  the  homely 
puerilities  of  Martin  Tupper  and  Poet  Close.  The  famous  cam- 

234 


“Punch”  and  “ The  Times ” 


paign  against  the  poet  Bunn  and  his  bad  librettos  goaded  the 
victim  into  reprisals  in  which  he  gave  as  good  as  he  got,  but 
the  fact  remains  that  Bunn  was  a  bad  poet,  though  Punch  quite 
overdid  his  persecution.  The  nobility  of  Wordsworth,  though 
the  least  humorous  of  poets,  was  handsomely  acknowledged; 
when  the  erection  of  a  statue  to  Peel  was  mooted,  Punch  put  in 
a  claim  for  a  similar  honour  to  the  sage  of  Rydal.  And  though 
indignant  with  Carlyle  for  his  defence  of  slavery,  Punch  was 
still  ready  to  acknowledge  “the  monarch  in  his  masquerade.” 
Lastly,  he  not  only  welcomed  Tennyson  as  a  master,  but  threw 
open  his  columns  to  him  to  retort  on  his  detractors. 

Dog  does  not  eat  dog,  but  the  unwritten  etiquette  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  which  one  newspaper  does  not  directly  attack  another 
was  much  less  strictly  observed  sixty  or  seventy  years  ago. 
Delane,  the  editor  of  The  Times,  exercised  a  greater  political 
influence  than  any  other  journalist  before  or  since,  and  for  a 
good  many  years  Punch  acted  as  a  sort  of  free-lance  ally  of  the 
great  daily,1  drawing  liberally  from  its  columns  in  the  way  of 
extracts  and  illustrations,  and,  according  to  his  habitual  prac¬ 
tice,  underlining  its  policy  while  pretending  to  be  shocked  at  it. 
Several  of  the  men  on  Punch  were  contributors  to  The  Times. 
Gilbert  h  Beckett’s  name  stands  first  in  the  list  of  the  principal 
contributors  and  members  of  the  staff  of  The  Times  under 
Delane  given  in  Mr.  Dasent’s  biography.  Yet  I  have  searched 
the  pages  of  the  biography  and  the  index  in  vain  for  a  single 
reference  to  Punch.  None  the  less  the  relations  of  the  "two 
papers  were  close  and  cordial,  and  “Billy”  Russell,  the  Times 
war  correspondent  and  unsparing  critic  of  mismanagement  in  the 


i  On  the  occasion  of  Punch's  Jubilee,  in  1891,  The  Times  remarked  :  “  May 
we  be  excused  for  noting  the  fact  that  he  [Punch)  has  generally,  in  regard  to 
public  affairs,  taken  his  cue  from  The  Times ?  ”  That  was  substantially  true 
of  The  Times  under  the  old  rigime  when  Delane  was  editor.  Mr.  Herbert  Paul, 
himself  a  strong  Liberal,  writes  in  his  History  of  Modern  England  that 
“  Delane’s  chief  quality  was  his  independence.”  Mr.  Dasent,  in  his  biography, 
gives  good  grounds  for  his  assertion  that  Delane  was  at  no  time  what  could 
be  called  a  party  man,  though  his  instincts  were  essentially  Liberal,  and  notes 
that  “  if  charged  with  inconsistency,  Delane  would  merely  remind  his  critics 
that  The  Times  was  the  organ  of  no  party,  and  that  every  issue  was  complete 
in  itself.” 


235 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


Crimea,  had  no  more  enthusiastic  trumpeter  than  Punch.  But 
the  great  gulf  in  prestige  and  power  between  The  Times  under 
Delane  and  the  rest  of  the  London  Press  is  indirectly  but  un¬ 
mistakably  shown  in  Punch’s  habitual  disrespect  for  most  of 
his  other  contemporaries.  In  another  context,  I  have  quoted 


JENKINS  AT  HOME 


examples  of  his  flagellation  of  the  Morning  Post— the  only 
paper,  by  the  way,  which  supported  the  Coup  d’Etat;  but  two 
masterpieces  of  malice  may  be  added.  In  1843,  a  propos 
of  “Jenkins’s”  incurably  unctuous  worship  of  rank,  Punch 
observes  :  “If  the  reader  be  not  weeping  at  this,  it  is  not  in  the 
power  of  onions  to  move  him.”  And  again,  a  little  later  on  in 
the  same  year,  Punch  compares  the  “beastliness”  of  Jenkins, 
“the  life-long  toad-eater,”  with  the  “beastly  fellow”  denounced 
in  the  Morning  Post  for  swallowing  twelve  frogs  for  a  wager! 
Punch  was  not  content  with  identifying  the  Morning  Post  with 

236 


Victorian  and  Georgian  Journalism 


the  imaginary  personality  of  Jenkins,  the  super-flunkey,  but  was 
also  responsible  for  re-christening  the  Morning  Herald  and  the 
Standard — Conservative  morning  and  evening  papers  which, 
until  1857,  belonged  to  the  same  proprietor- — Mrs.  Gamp  and 
Mrs.  Harris.  The  Standard  retaliated  by  calling  Punch  the 
“most  abject  of  all  the  toadies  of  The  Times,”  and  accusing  it  of 
libelling  “the  young  gentlemen  of  Eton  ”  and  the  Queen.  By 
an  unconscious  compliment  Punch  was  bracketed  with  the 
Examiner,  the  ablest  and  most  independent  of  the  weeklies,  as 
The  Times  was  of  the  dailies,  for  its  disloyalty  to  the  Crown. 
In  the  war  of  wits  which  ensued  and  was  carried  on  for  several 
years,  all  the  honours  rested  with  Punch.  But  these  contro¬ 
versies  belong  rather  to  the  domestic  history  of  Punch;  and 
Punch’s  friendly  relations  with  the  Daily  News,  of  which 
Dickens  was  the  first  editor,  must  be  somewhat  discounted  by 
the  facts  that  Douglas  Jerrold  was  an  intimate  friend  of  the 
novelist,  who  occasionally  dined  with  the  Punch  staff ;  that 
Paxton,  one  of  Punch’s  heroes,  exerted  all  his  great  influence 
on  behalf  of  the  new  daily ;  and  finally,  that  Bradbury  and  Evans 
were,  a:  the  time,  the  publishers  of  Dickens,  of  Punch,  and  of 
the  Daily  News.  The  journalism  of  the  ’forties  and  ’fifties 
presents  curious  analogies  with  and  divergences  from  the  * 
journalism  of  to-day.  Punch  is  never  weary  of  girding  at  the 
cult  of  monstrosity  and  sensationalism,  the  disproportionate 
amount  of  space  devoted  to  crime  and  criminals  and  causes 
celebres,  the  habit  of  burning  the  idols  of  yesterday,  the  nau¬ 
seating  compliments  paid  to  statesmen  after  death  by  those 
who  had  maligned  them  in  their  lifetime.  Many  of  the  least 
reputable  exploits  of  Georgian  journalism  were  anticipated  in 
early  Victorian  days.  Criticism  was  franker,  more  outspoken, 
and  less  restrained  by  the  law  of  libel,  and  Punch  always  stood 
out  within  reasonable  limits  for  the  liberty  of  the  Press.  When 
an  Edinburgh  jury  gave  a  verdict  against  the  Scotsman  in  the 
famous  case  brought  by  Duncan  MacLaren  in  1852,  Punch 
compared  them  to  Bomba,  and  congratulated  the  Scottish 
gentlemen  who  defrayed  the  Scotsman’s  costs  and  damages.  He 
regarded  it  as  a  righteous  protest  against  a  verdict  which 
threatened  “to  make  it  impossible  to  express  contempt  at  poli- 

237 


Mr.  Punch s  History  oj  Modern  England 


tical  apostasy,  disgust  at  the  abandonment  of  principles,  or 
indignation  at  any  coalition,  however  disreputable,  without  the 
danger  of  being  brought  before  a  jury.”  The  Scotsman  was 
then  edited  by  Alexander  Russel,  the  most  powerful,  original, 
and  enlightened  of  Scots  journalists.  Russel,  for  the  last 
twenty  years  of  his  life,  dominated  the  Scotsman  as  Delane 
dominated  The  Times.  But  it  was,  in  the  main,  a  righteous  and 
benevolent  dictatorship.  “What  made  every  one  turn  with 
alert  curiosity  to  The  Times  in  Delane’s  day  was  that  nobody 
knew  beforehand  which  side  he  would  take  on  any  new  ques¬ 
tion.”1  And  much  the  same  might  be  said  of  Russel.  No  such 
curiosity  is  possible  to-day.  There  has  been  a  great  levelling 
up  of  journalism  from  the  bottom,  and  a  great  levelling  down 
from  the  top.  In  the  old  days  the  gap  between  men  like  Delane 
and  Russel  and  the  penny-a-liners  was  greater  than  any  gap 
that  noAV  exists  in  the  profession.  Not  the  least  of  their  dis¬ 
tinctions  was  the  fact  that  they  both  died  without  even  a  knight¬ 
hood  to  their  names.  Fifty  years  later  neither  of  them  could 
have  held  his  post  for  a  fortnight.  It  is  to  the  credit  of  Punch 
that  he  recognized  the  value  of  their  independence  and  emulated 
it  in  his  own  sphere.  He  played  his  part  manfully  in  helping  to 
kill  the  old  flunkey-worship  of  rank,  but  could  not  prevent  the 
reincarnation  of  “Jenkins  ”  in  the  modern  sycophantic  worship¬ 
per  of  success — no  matter  how  achieved.  The  excellence  of 
provincial  journalism — not  yet  exposed  to  the  competition  of 
the  cheap  London  press — is  attested  by  Punch’s  frequent  cita¬ 
tions,  but  he  did  not  overlook  its  ineptitudes,  some  of  which 
happily  remain  to  refresh  our  leisure. 

But  of  all  the  professions,  none  looms  larger  in  the  early 
pages  of  Punch  than  that  of  medicine.  Here,  again,  a  broad 
distinction  is  drawn  between  the  heads  of  the  profession  and 
those  who  are  preparing  for  it;  between  legitimate  and  illegiti¬ 
mate  practitioners.  Men  like  Harvey  and  Jenner  are  extolled  as 
heroes  and  benefactors  of  humanity  at  large,  and  their  recog¬ 
nition  by  the  State  is  urged  as  a  national  duty.  The  maintenance 
of  the  status  and  dignity  of  physicians  and  surgeons,  civil, 

1  Delane  of  “  The  Times,”  bv  Sir  Edward  Cook,  p.  281. 

238 


Quacks  and  Doctors 


naval,  and  military,  is  frequently  insisted  upon  before  and 
during  the  Crimean  War.  Punch’s  tribute  to  the  services  of 
Florence  Nightingale  in  reorganizing  the  nursing  profession 
has  already  been  noted.  He  was  a  strenuous  advocate  of  the 
disestablishment  of  Mrs.  Gamp,  and  a  consistent  supporter  of 
the  campaign  against  quackery,  though  under  no  illusions  as 
to  the  possibility  of  its  entire  extermination  :  — 

Great  outcry  has  been  raised  of  late,  in  the  Lancet  and  other 
journals,  against  Quacks  and  Quackery.  Let  them  not  flatter  them¬ 
selves  that  it  is  possible  to  put  either  down.  The  Quack  is  a 
personage  too  essential  to  the  comfort  of  a  large  class  of  society 
to  be  deprived  of  his  vocation.  He  is,  in  fact,  the  Physician  of  the 
Fools — a  body  whose  numbers  and  respectability  are  by  far  too 
great  to  admit  of  anything  of  the  kind.  However,  as  there  are  some 
people  in  the  world  who  are  not  fools,  and  who  will  not,  when  they 
want  a  doctor,  have  recourse  to  a  Quack,  if  they  can  help  it,  the 
practice  of  the  latter  ought  certainly  to  be  limited  to  its  proper 
sphere.  For  this  end  we  could  certainly  go  rather  farther  than  Sir 
James  Graham’s  sympathies  permitted  him  to  proceed  last  session. 
We  propose  that  every  Quack  should  not  only  not  be  suffered  to 
call  himself  what  he  is  not,  but  should  be  compelled  to  call  himself 
what  he  is.  We  would  not  only  prevent  him  from  assuming  the  title 
of  a  medical  man,  but  we  would  oblige  him  to  take  that  of  Quack. 

This  was  written  in  1845.  The  Sir  James  Graham  referred 
to  was  one  of  the  blackest  of  all  Punch’s  hetes  nones — in  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  postal  censorship  which  earned  for  him  the 
title  of  “The  Breaker  (not  the  Keeper)  of  the  Seals,”  and 
prompted  the  savage  cartoon  of  “Peel’s  Dirty  Little  Boy.” 
He  never  had  friendly  treatment  at  the  hands  of  Punch. 
Elsewhere  it  is  insinuated  that  the  measure  played  the  game 
of  the  quacks,  and  the  history  of  attempts  to  regulate  their 
activities  in  the  last  seventy  years  goes  far  to  justify  Punch’s 
scepticism.  But  his  censure  was  not  confined  to  quacks;  he  says 
hard  things  of  doctors  who  exploited  and  traded  on  malades 
imaginaires ,  and  more  than  once  exhibits  impatience  at  the 
failure  of  medical  science  to  arrive  at  any  definite  conclusions 
as  to  the  causes  or  cure  of  the  cholera  epidemic  in  1849.  And 
when  Mr.  Muntz  brought  forward  a  motion  in  1845  to  oblige 
doctors  to  write  their  prescriptions  in  English  and  put  English 

239 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


labels  on  their  gallipots,  the  proposal  was  satirized  as  an  effort 
to  strip  medicine  of  its  indispensable  mystery.  It  may  be  not 


SOMETHING  LIKE  A  HOLIDAY 


PASTRYCOOK:  ‘‘What  have  you  had,  Sir?” 

BoY  :  "  I’ve  had  two  jellies,  seven  of  these,  eleven  of  these,  and  six  of 
those,  and  four  Bath  buns,  a  sausage  roll,  ten  almond  cakes — and  a 
bottle  of  ginger  beer.” 


unfairly  contended  that  Punch,  in  his  horror  of  humbug  and 
condemnation  of  guzzling  and  gormandizing,  was  a  disciple 
of  Abernethy.  His  views  on  diet  inclined  to  moderation  rather 
than  asceticism,  and  the  new  cult  of  vegetarianism,  which  seems 
to  have  had  its  origin  in  Manchester,  was  satirized  under  the 
heading,  “Greens  for  the  Green.” 

By  far  the  largest  number  of  the  references  to  medicine, 
however,  are  concerned  with  the  manners  and  customs  of  medical 
students,  and  if  corroboration  be  needed  for  the  unflattering 
picture  of  this  class  which  has  been  drawn  in  Pickwick,  the 
pages  of  Punch  supply  it  in  distressing  abundance.  The  coun- 

240 


Medical  Students 


terparts  of  Bob  Sawyer  and  Benjamin  Allen,  in  all  their  dingy 
rowdiness  are  portrayed  in  a  series  of  articles  and  paragraphs 
running  through  the  early  volumes. 

Thus,  under  the  heading  Hospitals  we  read  :  — 


The  attributes  of  the  gentlemen  walking  the  various  hospitals 
may  be  thus  enumerated  : 


Guy’s 

St.  Thomas’s 
St.  George’s 
London 
University 
Bartholomew’s 
Middlesex 
Charing  Cross 
King’s  College 
Westminster 


Half-and-half,  anatomical  fracas,  and  billiards. 

Doings  at  Tattersall’s. 

Too  remote  to  be  ascertained. 

Conjuring,  juggling,  and  mesmerism. 

State  of  Smithfield  Markets. 

Convivial  harmony. 

Dancing  at  the  Lowther-rooms. 

Has  not  yet  acquired  any  peculiarity. 

Dashes  of  all  the  others  combined. 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


Even  when  all  allowance  has  been  made  for  the  exaggeration 
of  the  satirist,  there  was  undoubtedly  a  serious  warrant  for  this 
indictment,  and  we  may  congratulate  ourselves  that  it  is  a  gross 
libel  on  the  medical  students  of  to-day.  They  may  be  exuberant, 
noisy,  and  rowdy  on  occasion,  but  they  are  neither  grubby  nor 
callous,  and  the  unfortunate  episode  of  their  treatment  of  Mr. 
“Pussyfoot  ”  Johnson  may  be  regarded,  we  believe,  as  a  blot 
on  the  scutcheon  of  their  sportsmanship  which  the  great 
majority  regretted  and  reprobated. 


242 


WOMEN  IN  THE  ’FORTIES  AND 
’FIFTIES 


ON  the  position  and  influence  of  women  in  society  Punch, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  furnishes  a  critical  if  not 
a  complete  commentary.  Extravagance,  exclusiveness 
and  arrogance  are  faithfully  dealt  with.  There  is  genuine  satire 
in  the  picture  of  the  fine  lady  who,  on  hearing  that  her  pet  dog 
had  bitten  the  footman  in  the  leg,  expressed  the  fervent  hope 
that  it  would  not  make  the  dog  ill.  Fashionable  delicacy  is 
ridiculed,  and  Picnch  ranged  himself  on  the  side  of  “S.G.O.” 
(Lord  Sidney  Godolphin  Osborne)  in  his  crusade  in  The  Times 
against  Mayfair  matrons  for  not  nursing  their  own  offspring, 
and  for  employing  wet-nurses  who,  in  turn,  had  to  starve  their 
own  children.  A  few  years  earlier,  when  the  question  “Can 
Women  regenerate  Society  ?  ”  was  seriously  discussed  in  the 
same  journal,  the  issue  is  drowned  by  Punch  in  a  stream  of 
comic  suggestions.  There  is  not  much  to  choose  between  the 
“Dolls’  House  ”  ideal  and  that  expressed  in  the  sonnet  printed 
in  the  winter  of  1846:  — 

I  idolize  the  ladies.  They  are  fairies 
That  spiritualize  this  earth  of  ours  ; 

From  heavenly  hotbeds,  most  delightful  flowers, 

Or  choice  cream-cheeses  from  celestial  dairies. 

But  learning  in  its  barbarous  seminaries, 

Gives  the  dear  creatures  many  wretched  hours, 

And  on  their  gossamer  intellects  sternly  showers 
Science  with  all  its  horrid  accessaries. 

Now,  seriously,  the  only  things,  I  think, 

In  which  young  ladies  should  instructed  be, 

Are  stocking-mending,  love,  and  cookery — 
Accomplishments  that  very  soon  will  sink, 

Since  Fluxions,  now,  and  Sanscrit  conversation, 

Always  form  part  of  female  education. 

243 


Mr.  Punch  s  PI i story  of  Modern  England 


But  even  within  the  ranks  of  the  social  elite  signs  of  a  desire 
for  equal  rights  were  not  wanting.  These,  however,  were  mainly 
in  the  direction  of  aping  masculinity  in  sport  and  dress.  In 
the  same  year  we  read  of  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough  shooting, 
and  a  Ladies’  Club  is  mentioned  for  the  first  time  a  few  months 


SOMETHING  LIKE  A  BROTHER 


FLORA:  “What  a  very  pretty  waistcoat,  Emily!” 

EMILY:  "Yes,  dear.  It  belongs  to  my  brother  Charles.  When  he  goes 
out  of  town,  he  puts  me  on  the  Free  List,  as  he  calls  it,  of  his  wardrobe.  Isn  t 
it  kind  ? 

earlier.  References  to  the  mistakenly  modern  idea  of  ladies 
smoking  are  to  be  found  pretty  frequently  even  before  the 
Crimean  War,  which  is  generally  held  responsible  for  the 
introduction  of  the  cigarette,  and  soon  afterwards  we  have  a 
picture  of  a  lady  calmly  enjoying  a  smoke  in  the  train.  Fine 
ladies  are  satirized  for  emulating  their  brothers  and  husbands  by 

244 


Victorian  Damsels 


leaving  their  bills  unpaid.  It  must  be  owned  that  woman,  if  she 
ventured  to  step  outside  the  domain  of  an  amiable,  decorative, 
or  domestic  mode  of  existence  met  with  little  commendation 
from  Punch.  He  was  a  strong  advocate  of  schools  for  cooking 
long  years  before  the  historic  advice  of  “Feed  the  Brute  ”  ap¬ 
peared  in  his  pages.  But  the  strong-minded  female  only  excited 
his  ridicule  and  satire,  though  with  unkind  inconsistency  he 
was  never  weary  of  making  fun  of  the  troubles  of  the  helpless 
“unprotected  female.”  There  are  hundreds  of  portraits  of 
charming  Victorian  damsels  in  Leech’s  “Social  Cuts,”  but  their 
predominant  trait  is  health  and  amiability.  Very  rarely  do  they 
say  anything  wise  or  witty  or  plain  spoken— even  under  great 
provocation  from  their  pert  schoolboy  brothers.  But  we  know — 
even  from  the  pages  of  Punch — that  Victorian  women  and  girls 
were  not  all  of  this  yielding  and  gentle  type,  and  it  is  to  his 
credit  that  in  his  sketch  of  “The  Model  Fast  Lady,”  he  was  able 
to  render  justice  to  a  phase  of  advanced  womanhood  remote  alike 
from  sentimentality  and  intellectualism  :  — 

She  delights  in  dogs ;  not  King  Charles’s,  but  big  dogs  that  live 
in  kennels.  She  takes  them  into  the  drawing-room,  and  makes 
them  leap  over  the  chairs.  Her  mare,  too,  is  never  out  of  her  mouth. 
...  If  she  is  intimate  with  you,  she  will  call  you  “my  dear  fellow  ”  ; 
and  if  she  takes  a  fancy  to  you,  you  will  be  addressed  the  first  time 
by  your  Christian  name,  familiarized  very  shortly  from  Henry  into 
Harry.  Her  father  is  hailed  as  “Governor.”  Her  speech,  in  fact, 
is  a  little  masculine.  If  your  eyes  were  shut,  you  would  fancy  it 
was  a  “Fast  Man  ”  speaking,  so  quick  do  the  “snobs,”  and  “nobs,” 
and  “chaps,”  and  “dowdies,”  “gawkies,”  “spoonies,”  “brats,” 
and  other  cherished  members  of  the  Fast  Human  Family  run 
through  her  loud  conversation.  Occasionally,  too,  a  “Deuce  take 
it,”  vigorously  thrown  in,  or  a  “Drat  it,”  peculiarly  emphasized,  will 
startle  you ;  but  they  are  only  used  as  interjections,  and  mean 
nothing  but  “Alas!”  or  “Dear  me!”  or,  at  the  most,  “How 
provoking  !  ” 

The  MODEL  FAST  LADY  is  not  particularly  attached  to 
dancing.  She  waltzes  as  if  she  had  made  a  wager  to  go  round  the 
room  one  hundred  and  fifty  times  in  five  minutes  and  a  quarter.  If 
any  one  is  pushed  over  by  the  rapidity  of  her  Olga  revolutions,  she 
does  not  stop,  but  merely  laughs,  and  “hopes  no  limbs  are  broken.” 

By  the  bye,  if  she  has  a  weakness,  it  is  on  the  score — rather  a 

245 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


long-  one — of  wagers.  She  is  always  betting.  It  must  be  men¬ 
tioned,  however,  that  she  is  most  honourable  in  the  payment  of  her 
debts.  She  would  sell  her  Black  Bess  sooner  than  levant. 

THE  MODEL  FAST  LADY  has,  at  best,  Lut  a  superficial 
knowledge  of  the  art  of  flirting.  Compliments,  she  calls  “stuff”; 


Fast  Young  Lady  (to  Old  G  ent) :  “  Have  you  such  a  thing  as  a  lucifer 
about  you,  for  I’ve  left  my  cigar  lights  at  home.’’ 


and  sentiment  “namby-pamby  nonsense.”  She  likes  a  person  to 
be  sensible ;  and  has  no  idea  of  being  made  a  fool  of. 

At  a  picnic  she  is  invaluable.  When  your  tumbler  is  empty, 
she’ll  take  Champagne  with  you — that  is  to  say,  if  you’re  not  too 
proud.  You  may  as  well  fill  her  glass;  she  has  no  notion  of  being 
cheated.  Here’s  better  luck  to  you  !  and  to  enforce  it,  she  runs 
the  point  of  her  parasol  into  your  side. 

She  dislikes  smoking?  Not  she  indeed;  she’s  rather  fond  of 
it.  In  fact,  she  likes  a  “weed”  herself  occasionally,  and  to  con¬ 
vince  you,  will  take  a  whiff  or  two.  Her  forefinger  is  not  much 
needle-marked,  and  she  laughs  at  Berlin  wool,  and  all  such  fiddle 

246 


The  Model  Fast  Lady 


faddle.  She  has  a  pianoforte,  but  really  she  has  no  patience  to 
practise.  She  can  play  a  short  tune  on  the  cornet-4-piston. 

Literature  is  a  sealed  pleasure  to  her,  though  it  is  but  fair  to 
state  she  reads  Bell's  Life,  and  has  a  few  volumes  in  her  bedroom 
of  the  Sporting  Magazine.  She  knows  there  was  a  horse  of  the 
name  of  Byron. 

The  FAST  LADY  rather  avoids  children.  If  a  baby  is  put 
into  her  hands,  she  says,  “Pray,  somebody,  come  and  take  this 
thing,  I’m  afraid  of  dropping  it.”  She  prefers  the  society  of  men, 
too,  to  that  of  her  own  sex. 

Her  costume  is  not  regulated  much  by  the  fashions,  and  she  is 
always  the  first  to  come  down  when  the  ladies  have  gone  upstairs 
to  change  their  dress. 

Her  greatest  accomplishment  is  to  drive.  With  the  whip  in  one 
hand  and  the  reins  in  the  other,  and  a  key-bugle  behind,  she  would 
not  exchange  places  with  the  Queen  herself. 

With  all  these  peculiarities  and  manly  addictions,  however,  the 
FAST  LADY  is  good  hearted,  very  good  natured,  and  never  guilty 
of  what  she  would  call  “a  dirty  action.”  Her  generosity,  too,  must 
be  included  amongst  her  other  faults,  for  she  gives  to  all,  and 
increases  the  gift  by  sympathy.  She  is  always  in  good  humour,  and, 
like  gentle  dulness,  dearly  loves  a  joke.  She  is  an  excellent 
daughter,  and  her  father  dotes  on  her  and  lets  her  do  what  she  likes, 
for  “he  knows  she  will  never  do  anything  wrong,  though  she  is 
a  strange  girl.”  In  the  country  she  is  greatly  beloved.  The  poor 
people  call  her  “a  dear  good  Miss,”  and  present  their  petitions 
and  unfold  all  their  little  griefs  to  her.  She  is  continually  having 
more  presents  of  pups  sent  to  her  than  she  knows  what  to  do  with. 
The  farmers,  too,  consult  her  about  their  cows  and  pigs,  and  she 
is  the  godmother  to  half  the  children  in  the  parish. 

Her  deficiencies,  after  all,  are  more  those  of  manner  than  of 
feeling.  She  may  be  too  largely  gifted  with  the  male  virtues,  but 
then  she  has  a  very  sparing  collection  of  the  female  vices.  Nature 
may  be  to  blame  for  having  made  her  one  of  the  weaker  vessels, 
but  imperfect  and  manly  as  she  is,  she  still  retains  the  inward  gentle¬ 
ness  of  the  woman,  and  many  fine  ladies,  who  stand  the  highest  in 
the  pulpits  of  society,  would  preach  none  the  less  effectively  if 
they  had  only  as  good  a  heart — even  with  the  trumpery  straw  in 
which,  like  a  rich  fruit,  it  is  enveloped — as  the  MODEL  FAST 
LADY. 

This  was  written  seventy  years  ago,  but  within  the  last 
decade  we  have  seen  Miss  Compton  frequently  impersonating 
roles  of  which  the  leading  traits  were,  in  essentials,  identical 

247 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


with  those  of  the  Model  Fast  Lady.  The  model  woman,  married 
or  unmarried,  as  represented  by  the  writers  and  artists  of  Punch, 
was  feminine,  kindly,  but  colourless,  though  the  “deviations 
from  the  norm  ”  are  not  overlooked — the  lion-huntresses  of 
Belgravia;  thrusting  matrons;  willing  victims  of  the  social  tread¬ 
mill  and  the  “petty  decalogue  of  Mode”;  cynical  high- 
priestesses  of  the  marriage  market. 

When  we  turn  to  the  higher  education  of  women  generally 
the  attitude  assumed  is  nearly  always  one  of  mild  chaff.  Punch 
refused  to  take  it  seriously,  and  propounded  his  own  scheme 
for  a  female  university,  in  which  the  fashionable  accomplish¬ 
ments  are  enumerated  in  detail  : — • 


French  and  Italian  as  spoken  in  the  fashionable  circles,  music, 
drawing,  fancy-work,  and  the  higher  branches  of  dancing,  will 
form  the  regular  curriculum.  A  minor  examination  on  these  sub¬ 
jects,  or  a  “Little  Go,”  will  be  instituted  before  the  Spinstership 
of  Arts  can  be  tried  for.  The  examined  shall  be  able  to  “go  on” 
anywhere  in  “Tdldmaque,”  or  in  the  conversations  in  Veneroni’s 
Grammar ;  to  play  a  fantasia  of  Thalberg’s ;  to  work  a  pair  of 
slippers  in  Berlin  wool ;  and  to  dance  the  Cachuca  and  Craco- 
vienne. 

For  the  degree  of  Spinster,  the  candidate  shall  be  examined  in 
various  novels  by  Paul  de  Kock,  Victor  Hugo,  Balzac,  and  others ; 
also  in  the  libretto  of  the  last  new  opera.  She  shall  be  able  to 
play  or  sing  any  of  the  fashionable  pieces  or  airs  of  the  day,  and 
shall  give  evidence  of  an  extensive  acquaintance  with  Bellini, 
Donizetti,  Labitzky,  and  Strauss.  She  shall  draw  and  embroider, 
in  a  satisfactory  manner,  various  fruits,  flowers,  cottages  and  a 
wood,  Greeks  and  Mussulmen.  Lastly,  she  shall  dance,  with 
correctness  and  elegance,  a  “pas  de  deux  ”  with  any  young  gentle¬ 
man  who  may  be  selected  for  the  purpose. 

There  shall  be  likewise,  with  respect  to  music  and  dancing,  an 
annual  examination  for  honours.  The  candidates  shall  evince  a 
familiarity  with  the  most  admirable  feats  of  Taglioni,  and  the 
Ellslers,  and  with  the  most  difficult  compositions  of  Herz,  Czerny, 
and  Bc-chsa;  though  if  they  like  they  may  be  allowed  to  take  up, 
in  preference,  Handel,  Mozart,  Haydn,  Beethoven  and  Weber. 

These  examinations  shall  be  called  respectively  the  Musical  and 
the  Dancing  Tripos.  No  one  shall  be  admissible  to  the  latter  who 
has  not  taken  honours  in  the  former.  The  gradations  or  distinc¬ 
tion  shall  be  as  follows  :  In  the  Musical  Tripos  the  foremost  damsel 

248 


Women  and  Politics 


shall  be  entitled  the  Senior  Warbler;  next  shall  follow  the  Simple 
Warblers;  the  Bravissimas  shall  come  next;  then  the  Bravas;  and 
finally  those  who  barely  get  their  degree. 

The  first  dancer  shall  be  denominated  La  Sylphide;  after  her 
shall  be  ranked  the  Sylphs;  next  to  these  the  first  and  second 
Coryphees;  and  lastly,  as  before,  the  merely  passable. 


This  article  is  fairly  typical  of  the  attitude  of  Punch  towards 
what  we  now  call  “Feminism  ” — a  term  so  new  that  in  the  New 
English  Dictionary  it  is  dismissed  in  half  a  dozen  words  as  a 
rare  word  meaning  “the  quali¬ 
ties  of  females  ”  !  That  de¬ 
finition,  however,  was  given  in 
1901.  Now  it  would  have  to 
be  revised  to  include  the  move¬ 
ment  for  political  emancipa¬ 
tion,  economic  independence, 
and  admission  to  the  profes¬ 
sions.  References  to  female 
politicians  begin  in  the  third 
volume,  where  we  find  the 
very  unsympathetic  and  even 
acid  sketch  here  given  of 
Miss  Walker,  “the  female 
Chartist.”  Eight  years 
elapsed  before  ladies  were 
admitted  to  the  gallery  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  though, 
even  then,  carefully  screened 
from  view  by  the  metal  work 
of  the  “Grille,”  an  Orientally  obscuring  device  which 
lasted  till  Georgian  days.  The  possibility  of  their  appear¬ 
ing  on  the  floor  of  the  House  is  never  seriously  contem¬ 
plated;  the  “Parliamentary  female”  included  amongst  the 
“ladies  of  creation  ”  in  the  Almanack  for  1852  is  modelled  on 
Mrs.  Jellyby — Bleak  House  had  been  coming  out  serially 
from  March,  1852,  onwards.  The  pioneers  of  the  invasion  of 
the  professions  hailed  from  America.  Miss  Elizabeth  Black- 

249 


MISS  WALKER  :  A  FEMALE 
POLITICIAN,  1842 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


well,  M.D.,  of  Boston,1  is  mentioned  in  1848,  and  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  year  Punch  welcomed  the  innovation  in  verse  :  — 

AN  M.D.  IN  A  GOWN 

Young  ladies  all,  of  every  clime, 

Especially  of  Britain, 

Who  wholly  occupy  your  time 
In  novels  or  in  knitting, 

Whose  highest  skill  is  but  to  play, 

Sing,  dance,  or  French  to  clack  well, 

Reflect  on  the  example,  pray, 

Of  excellent  Miss  Blackwell  1 

For  Doctrix  Blackwell — that’s  the  way 
To  dub  in  rightful  gender — 

In  her  profession,  ever  may 
Prosperity  attend  her  ! 

Punch,  a  gold-handled  parasol 
Suggests  for  presentation, 

To  one  so  well  deserving  all 
Esteem  and  admiration. 


Punch's  commendation  rather  declines  in  dignity  in  the  last 
stanza.  But  we  are  hardly  prepared  for  his  condemnation  of 
women  doctors  in  1852  merely  on  the  illogical  ground  that 
they  were  unfitted  to  walk  the  hospitals  or  use  the  scalpel.  The 
better  training  of  nurses  had  been  urged  before  the  days  of 
Florence  Nightingale;  Punch  appreciated  the  gossiping 
humours  of  Mrs.  Gamp,  but  he  was  very  far  from  regarding  her 
as  a  ministering  angel.  To  the  “strong-minded  female,”  how¬ 
ever,  he  had  a  strong  antipathy,  and  in  his  pictures  rather  un¬ 
generously  emphasized  the  unloveliness,  even  the  scragginess, 
of  the  advocates  of  women’s  rights.  The  famous  Amelia  Jenks 
Bloomer  was  a  vigorous  suffragist  and  temperance  reformer, 
but  Punch  was  only  concerned  with  her  campaign  on  behalf  of 

1  Miss  Blackwell,  as  we  learn  from  an  In  Memoriam  notice  in  The  Times, 
was  born  in  Bristol  on  February  3,  1821,  died  at  Hastings  in  1910,  and  was 
buried  at  Kilmun,  Argyllshire.  She  is  there  described  as  “  the  first  wojnan 
doctor.” 


250 


The  Bloomer  Craze 


“  trouserloons.”  “  Bloomers  ”  were  a  constant  theme  of  comment 
in  pantomime  librettos;  they  were  adopted  by  some  barmaids; 
and  a  “Bloomer  Ball”  was  actually  held  in  the  year  1851. 
This  earliest  form  of  “rational  ”  dress  for  women  was,  how¬ 
ever,  banned  by  Mayfair.  The  divided  skirt,  many  years 
later,  was  more  fortunate  in  having  a  Viscountess  for  its  chief 


BLOOMERISM— AN  AMERICAN  CUSTOM 


advocate.  Punch  is  not  only  concerned  with  feminine  dress- 
vagaries.  He  makes  a  semi-frivolous  suggestion  of  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  a  Poetess  Laureate,  and  the  “Letters  from  Mary  Ann,” 
though  they  form  a  new  departure  and  indicate  an  increased 
readiness  to  treat  the  claims  of  women  from  the  women’s  point 
of  view,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  whole-hearted  contribution  to 
the  cause.  Women  were  already  knocking  at  the  door  of  other 
professions.  In  1855  we  find  references  to  ladies  at  the  Bar  in 
America  and  women  preachers  in  Methodist  chapels  in  England. 

251 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


The  first  Exhibition  of  Women  Artists  is  noticed  in  July,  1857. 
Punch’s  anticipation  of  women  policemen  in  1851  was 
probably  prompted  not  by  or  desire  to  see  the  innovation 
realized,  but  merely  served  as  a  means  of  guying  bloomerism. 
The  female  omnibus  conductor  is  another  piece  of  unconscious 
prophecy,  as  she  was  imaginatively  represented  as  being  in 
charge  of  ’buses  for  ladies  only,  to  relieve  male  passengers 
from  the  pressure  of  voluminous  dresses  and  redundant  parcels. 
But  while  Punch  was  an  opponent  of  woman  suffrage  and, 
at  best,  a  lukewarm  supporter  of  woman’s  demand  for  pro¬ 
fessional  employment,  he  was — as  we  have  shown  in  other 
sections  of  this  survey — at  least  a  persistent  advocate  of  the 
reform  of  the  Divorce  Laws — and  unwearied  in  his  exposure 
of  the  hardships  and  sufferings  of  underpaid  governesses, 
sweated  sempstresses,  and  women-workers  generally.  Brutal 
assaults  on  women  were,  in  his  view,  altogether  inadequately 
punished  by  fine.  He  was  alive  to  their  wrongs  if  not  to  their 
‘’rights,”  and  the  sneers  of  some  of  his  contemporaries  at  the 
Women’s  Petition  in  1S56  moved  him  to  indignation  :  — 


THE  CRY  OF  THE  WOMEN 

Now,  this  petition  or  lamentation — in  which  Mr.  Punch  gives 
willing  ear  to  the  cry  of  weakness  and  unjust  suffering — has  been 
rebuked,  pooh-poohed,  pished  and  fiddle-de-dee’d ;  but  in  these 
scoffings  Mr.  Punch  joineth  not.  He  cannot,  for  the  life  of  him, 
say,  with  certain  editorial  porcupines  of  the  male  gender,  “Of  what 
avail  these  lamentations  of  lamenting  women,  whose  cries  are 
foolishness?  Wherefore  should  women  at  any  time  lift  up  their 
voices  ;  when  is  it  not  manifest  from  the  beginning  that  women  were 
created  to  sing  small?  And  finally,  if  women  be  beaten  by  savages, 
and  robbed  by  sots,  what  of  it?  It  is  better  that  women  should  be 
beaten  and  crouch  in  the  dust — it  is  better  they  should  be  robbed 
and  sit  at  home,  than  go  and  petition  Parliament.” 

He  espoused  the  cause  of  humble  heroines,  of  the  neglected 
widows  or  orphans  of  heroes  and  benefactors  like  a  true  knight 
errant.  Elsewhere  we  have  told  of  his  exertions  on  behalf  of 
Mother  Seacole,  the  brave  old  sutler  in  the  Crimea,  for  whose 

252 


“Punch”  Champions  Horatia 


benefit  he  started  a  special  fund.  The  scurvy  treatment  of  the 
widow  of  Lieutenant  Waghorn,  the  pioneer  of  the  Overland 
Route,  who  wore  himself  out  in  a  work  of  national  importance, 
moved  him  to  righteous  indignation.  She  was  given  a  pension 
of  ^25,  afterwards  increased  to  C40. 

But  none  of  these  palpable  wrongs  to  women  stirred  Punch 
so  deeply  in  these  years  as  the  tardy  and  meagre  discharge 
of  the  nation’s  debt  to  Nelson  in  respect  of  his  daughter 
Horatia.  To  this  particular  bit  of  narrow-mindedness  he  recurs 
again  and  again  in  the  years  1849  to  1 855,  when  he  sums  up 
what  had  been  done  to  liquidate  the  debt : — 

NELSON’S  DAUGHTER  AND  GRANDCHILDREN 

An  advertisement  in  The  Times  tells  the  world  that  the  eight 
children  of  Nelson’s  daughter  Horatia — Nelson’s  grandchildren — 
are  “more  or  less  provided  for.”  Perhaps  a  little  less  than  more; 
but  let  that  pass.  At  length  a  long,  long  standing  debt  has  been 
paid,  or  rather  compounded,  at  something  less  than  nineteen 
shillings  in  the  pound.  The  Government,  as  the  Government,  has 
done  nothing.  The  stiff,  whalebone  virtue  that  set  up  the  back 
of  Queen  Charlotte  against  Nelson’s  daughter — -George  the  Third 
thought  Nelson’s  funeral  had  too  much  state  in  it  for  a  mere  sub¬ 
ject;  such  pomp  “was  for  kings” — still  kept  the  Government  aloof 
from  all  help  of  Horatia  and  her  children.  At  length,  however,  the 
press  spoke  out.  The  “ribald  press”  for  a  time  laid  aside  its 
ribaldry,  and  condescended  to  champion  the  claims  of  Nelson’s 
daughter  upon  Nelson’s  fellow-countrymen.  Well,  something  has 
been  done ;  and  thus  much  in  explanation  we  take  from  the  advertise¬ 
ment  in  question  :  — 

“The  eight  children  of  Horatia,  Mrs.  Ward,  are  all  now, 
more  or  less,  provided  for.  Her  eldest  son  has  been  presented 
to  the  living  of  Radstock  by  the  Dowager  Countess  of  Walde- 
grave ;  the  second  son  had  been  previously  appointed  by  Sir 
W.  Burnett  Assistant-Surgeon  in  the  Navy  ;  to  the  third,  Lord 
Chancellor  Cranworth  has  given  a  clerkship  in  the  Registry- 
Office  ;  the  fourth  son  received  a  Cadetcy  from  Captain  Shep¬ 
herd  ;  His  Royal  Highness  Prince  Albert  conferred  a  similar 
appointment  on  the  youngest  son ;  and  Her  Majesty  has  been 
graciously  pleased  to  settle  upon  the  three  daughters  a  pension 
of  £300  per  annum.  To  this  last  result  the  exertions  of  the 
late  Mr.  Hume,  M.P.,  mainly  contributed.  Messrs.  Green, 

253 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


of  Blackwall,  and  Messrs.  Smith,  of  Newcastle,  conveyed  the 
two  Cadets  to  India  free  of  expense.” 

To  this  may  be  added  a  “small  cash  balance”  paid  to  Mrs. 
Ward,  “after  investing  ^400  in  the  funds.”  Altogether  some  ^1,427 
have  been  subscribed  in  the  cause  of  Nelson’s  daughter.  We  state 
the  sum,  and  will  not  pause  to  calculate  whether  the  amount  be 
the  tenth  of  a  farthing  or  even  a  whole  farthing  in  the  pound,  for 
which  England  is  Nelson’s  debtor.  Let  us  anyway  thank  those  who 
have  helped  Horatia’s  children.  They  have  all  done  well,  from  the 
Dowager  Countess  to  the  Queen,  ending  with  the  prince  ship-owners 
of  Blackwall  and  Newcastle.  Their  ships  will  not  have  the  worst 
fortune  of  wreck  or  storm  for  having  borne,  passage-free,  the 
grandsons  of  Nelson  to  their  Indian  work.  Let  us,  too,  pause  to 
thank  the  shade  of  Joseph  Hume — the  strong,  sound,  kind  old  heart ! 
Joseph,  who  “mainly  contributed,”  with  those  earnest,  honest  fingers 
of  his  to  undraw  the  royal  purse-strings,  so  that  the  three  grand¬ 
daughters  may  now  keep  the  wolf  from  the  door,  as  their  immortal 
grandfather  kept  the  foe  from  the  “  silver-girt  isle.” 

We  omit  the  bitter  words  in  which  Punch  heaps  scorn  on 
Nelson’s  brother,  “the  first  parson  Lord  Nelson,”  because  the 
odious  charges  there  made  cannot  be  substantiated.  This  was 
not  the  only  occasion  on  which  Punch’s  zeal  was  disfigured  by 
the  vehemence  of  his  partisanship.  But  we  cannot  blame  him 
for  his  jubilation  over  the  thrashing  of  General  Haynau,  the 
woman-flogger,  by  the  draymen  and  labourers  at  Barclay’s 
Brewery  on  the  occasion  of  his  visit  to  London  in  1850,  or  for 
the  vigour  with  which  he  scarified  the  papers  who  found  excuses 
and  parallels  for  Haynau’s  ferocity  in  the  military  exigencies 
of  the  Peninsular  War. 

Foremost  amongst  Punch’s  heroines  in  the  ’forties  and  ’fifties 
were  Jenny  Lind,  the  Swedish,  and  Florence,  the  English 
Nightingale,  but  of  these  mention  is  made  elsewhere.  In 
general,  the  personalities  of  notable  or  notorious  women  were 
not  unfairly  exploited  in  the  pages  of  Punch.  The  conspicuous 
isolation  of  Miss,  afterwards  Baroness,  Burdett  Coutts,  in 
virtue  of  her  great  wealth,  suggests  in  1846  the  problem,  Whom 
will  she  marry  ?  which  was  not  settled  until  1881.  Less  restraint 
is  shown  in  dealing  with  the  arrival  in  England,  after  practic¬ 
ally  ruling  Bavaria  for  more  than  a  year,  of  the  meteoric 

254 


Slavery  in  America — and  England 


adventuress,  Lola  Montez,1 * 3  and  with  her  marriage  with  a  young 
Cornet  in  the  Life  Guards  in  July,  1849.  Another  visitor,  of  a 
very  different  sort,  was  the  famous  Mrs.  Beecher-Stowe,*  author 
of  Unde  Tom’s  Cabin,  whose  sojourn  in  England  in  1853 
brought  the  question  of  slavery  in  America  into  social  promin¬ 
ence  and  led  to  the  presentation  of  the  “  Stafford  House  Address,” 
initiated  by  the  Duchess  of  Sutherland,  to  the  women  of 
America.  The  appeal  was  not  well  received,  being  answered 
by  the  “Address  of  many  thousands  of  the  women  of  the  United 
States,”  who  pointed  out  the  degraded  conditions  in  which  the 
poor  in  England  lived.  Two  wrongs  do  noi  make  a  right,  but 
there  was  excuse  for  the  retort.  The  Southern  planters  were  not 
all  Legrees.  Let  it  be  added  that,  in  his  indignation  at  the 
inadequate  sentences  passed  on  wife-beaters,  Punch  did  not 
fail  to  pillory  cruel  mothers  who  tortured  or  neglected  their 
children.  In  the  autumn  of  1856  he  contrasts  the  sentence  of 
four  years  on  a  woman  who  had  tortured  her  daughter  to  death 
with  that  of  fifteen  years  on  a  man  for  mutilating  a  sheep. 
Already  the  problem  of  the  numerical  disparity  of  the  sexes  and 
the  hard  case  of  the  “superfluous  woman  ”  had  begun  to  attract 
attention,  and  emigration  was  preached  as  a  panacea.  To  what 
has  been  written  elsewhere  on  the  remedy  and  Punch’s  belief 
in  it,  we  may  add  his  remarks  on  “Our  female  super¬ 
numeraries  ”  :  — 

The  Cynical  View: — Wherever  there  is  mischief,  women  are  sure 
to  be  at  the  bottom  of  it.  The  state  of  the  country  bears  out  this 
old  saying-.  All  our  difficulties  arise  from  a  superabundance  of 
females.  The  only  remedy  for  this  evil  is  to  pack  up  bag-  and 
baggage,  and  start  them  away. 

1  The  stage  name  of  Marie  Dolores  Eliza  Rosanna  Gilbert,  daughter  of  an 
English  officer,  born  at  Limerick  in  1818,  the  favourite  of  the  old  King 
Ludwig  of  Bavaria;  dancer,  actress,  author,  lecturer,  who  died  in  New  York 

“  sincerely  penitent  ”  in  1861. 

3  See  the  Examiner  and  Punch.  The  following  advertisement  in  the 
Examiner  will  be  read  with  interest : — “  The  arrival  of  Mrs.  Beecher- 
Stowe  has  given  an  impetus  to  the  demand  for  all  Stephen  Glover’s  com¬ 
positions  connected  with  Uncle  Tom:  ‘The  Sea  of  Glass,’  Eliza’s  song 
‘  Sleep,  our  child,’  ‘  Eva’s  Parting  Words,’  and  Topsy’s  song  ‘  I’m  but  a 
little  nigger  girl.’  ” 


255 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


The  Alarmist  View: — If  the  surplus  female  population  with  which 
we  are  overrun  increases  much  more,  we  shall  be  eaten  up  with 
women.  What  used  to  be  our  better  half  will  soon  become  our 
worse  nine-tenths ;  a  numerical  majority  which  it  will  be  vain  to 
contend  with,  and  which  will  reduce  our  free  and  glorious  consti¬ 
tution  to  that  most  degrading  of  all  despotisms,  a  petticoat 
government. 

Our  Own  View: — It  is  lamentable  that  thousands  of  poor  girls 
should  starve  here  upon  slops,  working  for  slopsellers,  and  only 
not  dying  old  maids  because  dying  young,  when  stalwart  mates  and 
solid  meals  might  be  found  for  all  in  Australia.  Doubtless  they 
would  fly  as  fast  as  the  Swedish  hen-chaffinches — if  only  they  had 
the  means  of  flying.  It  remains  with  the  Government  and  the 
country  to  find  them  wings. 

Punch's  chivalry  to  women  is  beyond  question,  but  it  was 
not  untempered  by  a  certain  condescension.  Throughout  these 
years— with  rare  exceptions — he  remains  faithful  to  the  old  as¬ 
sumption  that  no  woman  could  have  a  sense  of  humour.  Grown¬ 
up  sisters  are  frequently  represented  as  being  unmercifully 
chaffed  by  small  brothers  without  apparently  having  the  slightest 
power  of  effectual  rejoinder.  And  this  defect  is  shown  in  the 
pictures,  where  the  women  are  exceedingly  pleasant  to  look  at, 
but  nearly  always  quite  expressionless.  Yet  in  moments  of 
generous  expansion  Punch  was  capable  of  crediting  them  with 
extremely  damaging  criticism  of  their  lords  and  masters.  The 
high-water  mark  of  his  sympathy  with  female  emancipation  in 
these  years  is  to  be  found  in  the  homely  remonstrances  of 
“Mrs.  Mouser  ”  in  “A  Bit  of  my  Mind”:  — 

....  Well,  the  hypocrisy  of  men  all  over  the  world,  especially 
the  civilized  ! — for,  after  all,  the  savages  are  really  and  truly  more 
of  the  gentlemen.  They  mean  what  they  say  to  the  sex,  and  act 
up  to  it;  they  don’t  call  the  suffering  creatures  lilies,  and  roses, 
and  angels,  and  jewels  of  life,  and  then  treat  ’em  as  if  they  were 
weeds  of  the  world,  and  pebbles  of  the  highway.  But  with  civilized 
nations — as  I  fling  it  at  Mouser — they  all  of  ’em  make  women  the 
sign-post  pictures  of  everything  that’s  beautiful  and  behave  to  the 
dear  originals  as  if  they  were  born  simpletons.  “  Look  at  Liberty, 
Mr.  Mouser,”  said  I,  “look,  you  want  to  make  Liberty  look  as 
lovely  as  it  can  be  done,  and  what  do  you  do?  Why,  you’re 

256 


The  IVorm  Turns 


obliged  to  come  to  women  for  the  only  beautiful  Liberty  that  will 
serve  you.  You  paint  and  stamp  Liberty  as  a  woman,  and  then — 
but  it’s  so  like  you — then  you  won’t  suffer  SO'  much  as  a  single 
petticoat  to  take  her  seat  in  the  House  of  Commons.  And  next, 


“  Are  you  going  ?  ” 

“  Why,  ye-es.  The  fact  is  that  your  party  is  so  slow  and  I  am  weally  so 
infernally  bored,  that  I  shall  go  somewhere  and  smoke  a  quiet  cigar." 

"  Well,  good-night.  As  you  are  by  no  means  handsome,  a  great  puppy,  and 
not  in  the  least  amusing,  I  think  it  is  the  best  thing  you  can  do." 

Mouser  ” — for  I  would  be  heard — “  and  next,  you  want  the  figure 
of  Justice.  Woman  again.  There  she  is,  with  her  balance  and 
sword,  as  the  sort  of  public-house  sign  for  law,  but — is  a  poor  woman 
allowed  to  wear  false  hair,  and  put  a  black  gown  upon  her  back, 
and  so  much  as  once  open  her  mouth  on  the  Queen’s  Bench?  May 
she  put  a  tippet  of  ermine  on  herself — may  she  even  find  herself  in 
a  jury?  Oh,  no:  you  can  paint  Justice,  and  cut  her  in  stone,  but 
you  never  let  the  poor  thing  say  a  syllable.” 

R-L  257 


FASHION  IN  DRESS 


IT  is  a  noteworthy  sign  of  the  times  that  between  1841  and 
1857  the  specific  references  to  the  dress  of  men  in  the  text 
of  Punch  are  much  more  numerous  than  those  dealing 
with  the  vagaries  of  female  attire.  The  balance  inclines  in  the 
contrary  direction  in  the  pictures  which,  when  tested  by  old 
daguerreotypes  and  the  contents  of  family  albums,  form  a  sub¬ 
stantially  correct  and  illuminating  commentary  on  the  evolution 
of  fashion  in  women’s  dress.  So  we  begin  with  the  ladies,  with 
the  double  proviso  that  Leech  and  Doyle  and  their  brother 
artists  on  Punch  were  not  fashion-plate  designers,  and  that  the 
charms  and  extravagances  of  the  modish  world  which  they  de¬ 
picted  were  drawn  mainly  from  the  Metropolis.  Punch  was  a 
Londoner,  even  a  Cockney,  and  throws  little  light  on  the  social 
life  of  the  provinces. 

To  speak  roughly,  fashion  in  women’s  dress  is  subject  to 
two  great  alternating  influences — in  the  direction  of  elongation 
or  of  lateral  extension.  In  the  ’forties  and  ’fifties  the  tendency 
was  steadily  in  the  second  direction  and  away  from  the  slim 
elegance  which  has  been  the  aim  of  the  modistes  of  recent  years. 
Long,  “mud-bedraggled  ”  dresses  are,  it  is  true,  condemned  in 
1844,  but  width  rather  than  length  was  the  prevailing  feature. 
It  was  the  age  of  flounces,  and  this  expansive  tendency  cul¬ 
minated,  in  the  mid-’fifties,  in  the  reign  of  the  crinoline,  against 
which  Punch  waged  for  many  years  a  truceless  but,  as  he  him¬ 
self  admitted,  a  wholly  ineffectual  warfare.  The  first  indication 
of  the  coming  portent  is  to  be  found  in  the  annus  mirabilis  of 
1848,  when  an  “air-tube  dress  extender  ”  is  shown  in  a  picture. 
This,  however,  was  a  single  hoop  and  comparatively  modest  in 
its  circumference.  The  crinoline,  in  its  full  amplitude,  did  not 
invade  London  until  1856.  Thenceforward,  hardly  a  number  is 
free  from  satire  and  caricature  of  this  exuberant  monstrosity,  and 

258 


The  Breadth  of  the  Fashion 


EASIER  SAID  THAN  DONE 

MASTER  OF  the  House:  “Oh,  Fred,  my  boy — when  dinner  is  ready,  you 
take  Mrs.  Furbelow  downstairs  !  ” 


the  inconvenience  caused  in  theatres,  drawing-rooms,  in  the 
parks  and  public  vehicles,  and  in  the  streets.  What  with  the 
bath-chairs  of  invalids,  the  ladies’  dresses,  and  the  children’s 
perambulators,  we  read  in  1856,  that  “it  amounts  almost  to  an 
impossibility  nowadays  to  walk  on  the  pavements.”  People 
were  now  dressed  “not  in  the  height,  but  the  full  breadth 
of  the  fashion.”  The  structure  of  the  machine,  with  its  whale¬ 
bone  ribs  and  inflated  tubes,  was  revealed  in  all  its  mammoth 
dimensions.  It  was  denounced  alike  as  an  absurdity  and  as  a 
danger,  but  satire  and  warnings  were  equally  powerless  to  abate 
the  nuisance.  But  the  crinoline  was  only  the  most  conspicuous 
and  culminating  example  of  a  tendency  to  superfluous  clothing 
and  a  semi-Oriental  muffling-up  of  the  female  form,  against 

259 


GRAND  CHARGE  OF  PERAMBULATORS— AND  DEFEAT  OF 

SWELLS 


ILLUSTRATION  FROM  AN  UNPUBLISHED  NOVEL 


260 


Aids  to  Beatify 


which  Punch  has  lived  to  see  a  most  acute  and  wholesome  re¬ 
action.  A  sentimental  “Buoy  at  the  Nore  ”  writes  to  put  on 
record  a  protest  against  the  enormous  sunbonnets  which 
covered  up  the  “dear  heads”  of  beauties  on  the  Ramsgate 
sands.  In  those  days  the  use  of  cosmetics  and  pigments  was 
far  less  general ;  veils  and  bonnets  and  sunshades,  notably  the 
projection  aptly  nicknamed  the  “Ugly,”  were  in  great  demand. 


WHAT  MUST  BE  THE  NEXT  FASHION  IN  BONNETS 


The  resources  of  civilization  were  employed  to  preserve  com¬ 
plexions  rather  than  to  supply  artificial  substitutes.  So  we  find 
Punch  in  1855  describing  with  much  gusto  a  young  lady 
at  the  seaside  wearing:  (1)  A  huge,  round  hat  doubled  down 
to  eclipse  all  but  her  chin,  (2)  an  “Ugly  ”  of  similar  magnitude, 
(3)  a  veil,  and  (4)  a  parasol.  These  huge,  round  hats,  like 
shallow  bowls,  were  worn  by  little  girls,  who  were  often  dressed 
like  their  parents  with  flounces  and  voluminous  skirts.  But 
extremes  meet,  and  along  with  the  monstrous  seaside  hats — big 
enough  to  be  used  as  a  substitute  for  an  archery  target  by  un¬ 
disciplined  younger  brothers — small  bonnets,  worn  on  the  back 
of  the  head,  and  tiny  parasols  were  in  vogue  in  1853.  A  certain 

261 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


masculinity  of  attire  was  affected 
by  young  ladies  of  sporting 
tastes — in  the  way  of  waistcoats 
and  ties  for  example — but  the 
fashionable  world  set  its  face  as 
a  flint  against  anything  in  the 
way  of  rational  dress  reform. 
In  1S51  we  find  one  of  the 
earliest  instances  in  Punch 
of  the  use  of  the  word  “aes¬ 
thetic  ”  in  connexion  with  cos¬ 
tume,  where  in  an  imaginary 
PLAIN  dialogue  Miss  Runt,  a  strong- 

minded  female,  speaks  of  “our 
dress  viewed  as  sanitary,  economical,  aesthetic. ”  1  Mayfair 
had  no  appreciation  of  any  of  these  aspects  of  millinery, 
and  “Bloomerism”  never  caught  on  with  the  fashionable 


world. 

This  was  the  age  of  flounces  and  crinolines;  it  was  also  the 
age  of  ringlets.  Bands  and  braids  and  hair  nets  are  features 
of  early  Victorian  coiffure,  but  ringlets  were  undoubtedly  the 
favourite  mode  for  full  dress  occasions.  The  fashion  lasted  for 


a  good  many  years.  You  will 
depicted  by  Leech  in  1847,  an 


RINGLETS 


ind  it  in  the  ballroom  scene 
1  Leech  illustrated  Surtees’s 
novel  Plain  or  Ringlets?  in 
i860.  Of  the  “plain  ”  variety 
of  hairdressing  there  are 
several  good  examples  in 
Punch,  notably  the  head 
given  above,  with  which 

1  “  .Esthetical  ”  was  noticed  as 
early  as  1847  in  a  dig  at  New 
Curiosities  of  Literature,  and  in 
1853  we  read  of  an  “  aesthetic  tea,” 
at  which  “  the  atmosphere  was  one 
of  architecture,  painting,  stained 
glass,  brasses,  heraldry,  wood  carv¬ 
ing,  madrigals,  chants,  motets, 
mysticism  and  theology.” 


262 


Coiffures  in  the  ’ Fifties 


we  couple  the  ringleted  belle  illustrated  at  the  foot  of  the 
same  page. 

In  the  mid-’fifties,  it  may  be  noted,  it  was  the  fashion  for 
women  to  wear  gold  and  silver  dust  in  their  hair.  In  1854  it 
was  often  dressed  d  Vimperatrice  in  imitation  of  the  Empress 
Eugenie,  and  Punch  satirizes  as  an  absurdity  the  general 


./ESTHETIC  PIONEERS 

Mrs.  TURTLEDOVE :  "  Dearest  Alfred!  Will  you  decide  now  what  we  shall 
have  for  dinner?” 

Mr.  Turtledove:  "Let  me  see,  poppet.  We  had  a  wafer  yesterday — 
suppose  we  have  a  roast  butterfly  to-day." 

adoption  of  a  coiffure  unsuited  to  people  of  certain  ages,  features, 
and  positions— a  wide  scope  for  his  wit.  Tight  lacing  is  seldom 
noted,  and  in  one  respect  the  ladies  of  the  time  were  exempt 
from  censure  :  high  heels  had  not  yet  come  in,  or,  if  they  had, 
they  escaped  Punch’s  vigilant  eye.  In  the  main  Leech,  on 
whose  pencil  the  burden  of  social  commentary  fell,  was  a  genial 
satirist  of  feminine  foibles.  Whether  they  were  dancing  or 
riding  or  bathing,  walking  or  doing  nothing,  the  young  women 

263 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


MERMAIDS  AT  PLAY 


he  drew  were  almost  invariably  comely  to  behold.  And  that 
reminds  me  that  the  decorum  of  sea-bathing  in  the  ’fifties  was 
promoted  by  the  apparatus  known  as  the  awning,  attached  to 
bathing  machines.  Children  were  handed  over  to  the  rigours 
of  old  bathing-women  as  depicted  in  the  terrifying  picture 
opposite. 

Turning  to  male  attire  we  have  to  note  that  the  main  features 
of  men’s  dress  as  we  know  it  was  already  established,  though 
in  regard  to  colour,  details,  and  decoration  the  influence 
of  the  Regency  period  still  made  itself  felt.  Trousers  were 
first  generally  introduced  in  the  Army  (see  Parkes’s  Hygiene) 
at  the  time  of  the  Peninsular  War,  but  pantaloons — the 
tight-fitting  nether  garments  which  superseded  knee-breeches 
late  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  were  secured  at  the  ankles 
with  ribbons  and  straps,  were  fashionable  in  the  ’forties. 
You  will  see  no  trousers,  as  we  know  them  to-day,  in  the 
illustrations  to  Pickwick,  and  in  the  early  ’forties  panta¬ 
loons  appear  in  Punch’s  illustrations  of  fashionable  wear  at 
dances.  The  cut  of  the  “claw-hammer”  dress-coat  does  not 
differ  from  that  of  to-day,  but  it  was  often  of  blue  cloth  with  brass 
buttons;  shirts  were  frilled,  and  waistcoats  of  gold-sprigged 

264 


Fashions  for  Men 


satin.  The  bow  tie  was  larger,  resembling  that  worn  by  nigger 
minstrels.  “Gibus,”  or  crush  hats,  did  not  arrive  till  the  late 
’forties — they  are  mentioned  in  Thackeray’s  Book  of  Snobs, 
and  gentlemen  always  carried  their  tall  hats  in  their  hands  at 
evening  parties,  and  habitually  wore  them  at  clubs.  For  morn¬ 
ing  wear  blue  frock-coats,  with  white  drill  trousers  and  straps, 
were  fashionable  in  1844.  Stocks  and  cravats  and  neck-cloths 
had  not  been  ousted  by  ties.  The  degage  loose  neck-cloth  of 
the  “fast  man”  in  1848  is  ridiculed  by  Punch,  who  traces  its 
origin  to  the  neck-wear — as  modern  hosiers  say — of  the  British 
dustman.  Amongst  overcoats  the  Taglioni,  a  sack-like  garment, 
called  after  the  famous  dancer,  is  most  frequently  mentioned; 
the  Petersham,  a  heavy  overcoat  named  after  Lord  Petersham, 
a  dandy  of  the  Waterloo  period,  still  held  its  own.  The 
Crimea  brought  Alma  overcoats,  Balaklava  wrappers,  and 
Crimea  cloaks,  and  about  the  same  time  Punch  caricatures  a 


BATHING  WOMAN:  M  Master  Franky  wouldn’t  cry !  No!  Not  he! — He’ll  come 
to  his  Martha,  and  bathe  like  a  man !  ” 

265 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


PERCEPTIVE  Child:  "Mamma,  dear!  Why  do  those  gentlemen  dress  them¬ 
selves  like  the  funny  little  men  in  the  Noah’s  Ark  ?” 

long  garment  reaching  nearly  to  the  heels,  which  gave  the 
wearer  the  appearance  of  a  toy  figure  from  a  Noah’s  Ark. 
There  is  a  mention  of  the  “Aquascutum  ”  waterproof 
ten  years  earlier.  One  Stultz  was  the  fashionable  tailor 
of  the  time.  The  chief  hatter,  however  (according  to  Punch), 
was  Prince  Albert,  whose  continual  and  unfortunate  experi¬ 
ments  with  headgear  have  been  mentioned  elsewhere.  Punch 
speaks  of  his  obsession  as  a  monomania ;  he  only  abstained  from 
calling  him  “the  mad  hatter  ”  because  that  engaging  personage 
had  not  yet  emerged  from  the  brain  of  Lewis  Carroll.  But 
Punch  himself  was  much  preoccupied  with 'hats.  There  was  a 
certain  elegance  about  the  tall  beaver  hat  which  tapered  towards 
the  crown.  There  was  none  in  the  rigid  “chimney-pot”  or 
cylinder  silk  hat,  the  ugliest  of  all  European  head-dresses, 
with  its  flat,  narrow  brim,  which  was  “established”  by  1850. 
Punch  warred  against  it  almost  as  vigorously  and  as  ineffectu¬ 
ally  as  against  the  crinoline.  Indeed,  in  1851  he  even  went  to 
the  length  of  suggesting  the  form  and  materials  suitable  for  an 
ideal  hat :  — 


266 


The  Ideal  Hat 


Take  an  easy  and  well-cut  morning-  jacket  of  the  form  no  longer 
confined  to  the  stableyard  or  barrack  room,  but  admitted  alike  into 
breakfast  parlour  and  country  house,  or  the  hanging  paletot  with 
a  waistcoat,  not  scrimp  and  tight,  but  long  and  ample,  and  wide  and 
well-made  trousers  of  any  of  the  neutral-tinted  woollen  fabrics 
that  our  northern  looms  are  so  prolific  in ;  and  we  assert  fearlessly 
that  a  broad-leafed  and  flexible  sombrero  of  grey,  or  brown  or  black 
felt  may  be  worn  with  such  a  costume,  to  complete  a  dress  at  once 
becoming  and  congruous. 

The  resources  of  modern  newspaper  enterprise  were  not  then 
available  to  enable  Punch  to  realize  his  ideal,  but  he  continued 
to  tilt  at  the  “chimney-pot,”  though  he  never  succeeded  in 
dethroning  it.  High  collars  are  caricatured  in  1854.  At  first 
they  were  wide  as  well  as  high,  but  the  “all  round  collar” 
of  which  Punch  has  a  picture  in  1854  approximates  to 
the  lofty  cincture  worn  by  the  present  Lord  Spencer  when 
a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons.  The  monocle  was  not 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


uncommon ;  but  the  caricature  of  Colonel  Sibthorp,  one  of 
Punch’s  favourite  butts,  shows  that  the  square  shape  was  still 
used.  White  waistcoats  were  noted  as  the  emblem  of  the 
blameless  life  of  the  “Young  England”  party.  For  the  gro¬ 
tesque  extravagances  of  fashion  Oxford 
undergraduates,  forerunners  of  little  Mr. 
Bouncer,  are  singled  out  for  satire,  but  if 
we  are  to  believe  Mr.  Punch,  caricature 
was  unnecessary. 

If  this  was  the  age  of  ringlets  for 
women,  it  was  the  age  of  whiskers,  short 
but  ambrosial,  for  men.  The  long  “Picca¬ 
dilly  weepers”  of  Lord  Dundreary  were  a 
slightly  later  development,  but  Leech’s 
“swells”  all  wear  whiskers  in  the  ’forties 
and  ’fifties.  (Is  not  the  habit  immor¬ 
talized  in  the  mid-Victorian  comic  song  : 
“The  Captain  with  his  whiskers  cast  a  sly 
glance  at  me  ”  ?)  They  wore  small  mou¬ 
staches,  too,  and  occasionally  chin-tufts. 
Under  the  head  of  “Moustaches  for  the 
Million,”  Punch,  in  1847,  ironically  sug¬ 
gests  the  placing  of  sham  moustaches 
on  the  market  for  the  benefit  of  seedy 
bucks,  swell-mobsmen,  inmates  of  the 
Queen’s  Bench  prison,  and  all  impostors 
who  affected  a  social  status  to  which  they 
had  no  claim  or  which  they  had  forfeited. 
But  what  he  calls  the  “Moustache  Move¬ 
ment  ”  in  the  early  ’fities  was  undoubtedly 
inspired  by  military  example,  and  was  fol¬ 
lowed  by  the  fashion  of  growing  beards. 
The  necessity  of  campaigning  became  the 
adornment  of  peace,  and  in  1854  and  1855 
we  find  pictures  of  tremendously  bearded 
railway  guards  and  ticket-collectors,  whose 
appearance  terrifies  old  ladies  and  gentle- 


“  SIBBY  ”—1843 


men. 


268 


Uncomfortable  Uniforms 


The  vagaries  of  military  uniforms — apart  from  the  intrusions 
of  Prince  Albert — call  for  separate  treatment.  The  new  and 
very  skimpy  shell- jacket  introduced  in  1848  evokes  imaginary 


PROCTOR  (to  Undergraduate)  :  “  Pray,  Sir,  will  you  be  so  good  as  to  tell  me 
whether  you  are  a  member  of  the  University,  or  a  Scotch  terrier?" 


protests  alike  from  stout  and  lean  officers.  The  short,  high¬ 
shouldered  military  cape  is  guyed  in  1851.  In  1854  Punch 
throws  himself  with  great  energy  into  the  movement  for  the 
abolition  of  the  high  stock  and  the  adoption  of  more  rational 
and  comfortable  clothing — witness  the  verses,  “Valour  under 
difficulties,”  depicting  the  sufferings  of  a  half-strangled  militia¬ 
man;  the  caricature  of  the  “New  Albert  Bonnet  the  cartoon 
in  which  Private  Jones  in  a  bearskin,  black  in  the  face  from 
the  strangulation  of  his  stock,  is  afraid  that  his  head  is  coming 
off ;  the  ridiculous  frogged  tunic  with  a  very  low  belt ;  and 
the  comments  on  the  Army  Order,  issued  by  Sidney  Herbert  in 
1854,  providing  white  linen  covers  for  helmets  and  shakos  as  a 
protection  against  the  heat.  The  sufferings  endured  by  soldiers 

269 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


owing  to  their  heavy  packs  and  marching  kit  are  not  forgotten. 
But  these  abuses,  like  the  story  of  the  bad  and  rotten  boots  pro¬ 
vided  by  contractors  for  the  Crimea,  do  not  belong  to  a  chronicle 
of  fashion,  but  to  the  scandalous  history  of  commerce.  Did 
history  repeat  itself  in  some  measure  in  the  Great  War? 


Rude  Boy  :  “O,  look  'ere,  Jim! — If  'ere  ain’t  a  Lobster  bin  and  out-growed 
his  cloak  !  ” 


THE  DRAMA,  OPERA,  MUSIC,  AND 
THE  FINE  ARTS 


ONE  must  not  expect  to  find  a  detached,  impartial, or  coldly 
critical  survey  of  the  drama  in  the  pages  of  Punch.  Most 
of  his  staff  had  dabbled  in  play-writing ;  Douglas  Jerrojd 
was  a  prolific,  accomplished,  and,  so  far  as  prestige  went,  a 
successful  dramatist,  but  he  had  reaped  a  singularly  meagre 
reward  for  his  industry  and  talent.  He  had  fallen  out  with 
managers,  and  his  quarrel  with  Charles  Kean  was  not  without 
its  influence  on  Punch's  persistent  disparagement  of  that  actor. 
Yet,  when  all  allowance  has  been  made  for  these  personal 
motives  and  the  querulous  tone  which  they  occasionally  in¬ 
spired,  Punch  may  fairly  claim  to  have  rendered  valuable  ser¬ 
vice  to  the  British  drama  in  this  period.  He  was  sound  in 
essentials :  in  his  whole-hearted  devotion  to  Shakespeare  and 
loyal  support  of  those,  like  Phelps  and  Mrs.  Warner,  who  under 
great  difficulties,  and  with  no  fashionable  patronage,  gave  good 
performances  of  Shakespearean  plays  at  moderate  prices ;  in  his 
unceasing  attacks  on  “Newgate  plays,”  “poison  plays,”  the 
cult  of  the  criminal  whether  native  or  foreign,  stage  buffoonery, 
over-reliance  on  mere  upholstery,  dramatic  cliches,  and  solecisms 
in  pronunciation.1  He  was  also  a  reformer  in  his  advocacy 
of  improvements  for  the  comfort  and  convenience  of  the  play¬ 
goer,  such  as  the  abolition  of  the  rule  of  evening  dress.  And, 
as  we  have  seen,  he  rebuked  mummer-worship,  holding  that 
“the  players’  vanity  has  been  the  curse  of  the  modern 
drama.”  His  continued  and  pointed  remonstrance  with  the 
Court  for  discouraging  British  plays  and  British-born  players 
has  been  already  noted.  It  runs  through  the  first  ten 

1  See  the  protest  against  “  skee-yi,”  “  blee-yew,”  “  kee-yind,”  “  dis- 
gyee-ise,”  for  “  sky,”  “  blue,”  “  kind,”  “  disguise.” 

271 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


years  of  Punch  with  little  intermission  and  was  largely  justified. 
Punch  was  able  to  congratulate  Prince  Albert  on  subscribing 
to  the  fund  raised  to  purchase  Shakespeare’s  house  for  the 
nation  in  1847,  but  in  the  main  his  grievance  was  genuine. 
Foreign  artists  and  freaks  were  far  too  freely  patronized  and 
encouraged  at  Court.  The  balance  has  long  since  been  re¬ 
dressed,  and  another  grievance — the  dependence  of  managers 
on  translations  and  adaptations  from  French  plays  as  set  forth 
in  the  following  extract — has  been  largely  remedied,  though  the 
remedy,  so  far  as  the  importation  of  American  plays  is  con¬ 
cerned,  is  by  some  critics  considered  worse  than  the  disease  :  — 

GaJignani’s  Messenger  says  of  the  French  theatre  : — 

“There  were  produced  in  1842  at  the  different  theatres  of  Paris, 
191  new  pieces.” 

Punch  says  of  the  English  theatre  : — 

“There  wrere  produced  in  1842  at  the  different  theatres  of  London 
about  ten  new  pieces ;  the  rest  being  hashed,  fricasseed,  devilled, 
warmed  up,  from  old  stock  brought  from  France  or  stolen  from  the 
manufactory  of  Bentley  and  others!  ” 

Censure  is  impartially  bestowed  on  home-made  and  imported 
specimens  of  the  Newgate  drama  —  Jack  Sheppard  and 
Madame  Lafarge d  Of  the  latter  we  read  that  besides  being 
revolting  it  was  “disgusting  and  filthy.”  The  play  is  compared, 
to  its  great  disadvantage,  with  The  Beggar’s  Opera,  which 
is  defended  as  being  “real  satire  and  not  wallowing  in  vice.” 
George  Stephens’s  tragedy  Martinuzzi  comes  in  for  frequent 
ridicule,  though  the  chief  roles  were  taken  by  Phelps  and 
Mrs.  Warner,  and  the  ridicule  seems  to  have  been  wTell 
deserved.  On  what  grounds  Stephens  gained  a  place  in  the 
D.N.B.  is  not  evident,  as  his  dramas  soon  died  beyond 
all  possibilities  of  resurrection.  Lord  Mahon’s  “petition  ”  to 
Parliament  on  behalf  of  the  drama  in  the  year  1842  met  with 

1  Madame  Lafarge  (1816-52)  achieved  a  sinister  immortality  by  the  famous 
poisoning  case  which  bears  her  name,  “  one  of  the  most  obscure  in  the  annals 
of  French  justice  ”  (Larousse).  After  being  imprisoned  for  twelve  years  she 
was  released  and  died  in  1852. 


272 


Lord  Mahons  Petition 


Punch’s  support.  It  amounted  to  this,  that  Parliament  in  the 
bounty  of  its  wisdom  would  permit  what  were  then  called  the 
minor  theatres  to  play  the  very  best  dramas  they  could  obtain ; 
as  it  was  they  were  only  open  to  the  very  worst.  Douglas 
Jerrold  writing  under  his  signature  of  “Q  ”  then  develops  the 
argument : — 

Virtue,  decency,  loyalty,  and  a  bundle  of  other  excellences,  are 
only  valuable  in  Westminster.  In  that  city  of  light  and  goodness, 
the  Lord  Chamberlain  deputes  some  holy  man  to  read  all  plays 
ere  they  are  permitted  to  be  produced  before  a  Westminster  audience. 
There  is  no  such  care  taken  of  the  souls  of  Southwark  or  Islington. 
The  Victoria  audiences  may  be  the  Alsatians  of  play-goers,  and 
laugh,  and  weep,  and  hoot,  in  defiance  of  Law.  They  get  their 
Jack  Sheppards,  unlicensed  and  unpaid  for;  but  the  strait-laced 
frequenters  of  the  Adelphi  and  Olympic  have  the  satisfaction  of 
knowing  that  their  Jack  Sheppard  has  been  licensed  by  a  Deputy,  for 
a  certain  amount  of  Her  Majesty’s  money.  There,  the  beauties  of 
Tyburn  are  exhibited  with  a  cum  privilegio. 

Will  Lord  Mahon’s  petition  have  the  effect  of  altering  this 
wickedness,  this  stupidity,  this  injustice  and  absurdity?  We  hope 
it  may ;  but,  we  repeat  it,  we  have  little  faith  in  the  enthusiasm  of 
Parliament.  With  the  worthy  gentlemen  who  compose  it,  the 
playhouse  is  become  low  and  vulgar.  Were  they  called  upon  to 
debate  what  should  be  the  statute  length  of  Cerito’s  petticoats,  we 
should  have  greater  hope  of  their  activity,  than  when  the  subject 
involves  the  true  interests  of  the  English  dramatist,  and  the  real 
value  of  the  English  stage. 

Punch’s  pessimism  was  fortunately  not  justified  by  the 
sequel,  for  in  the  following  year,  1843,  the  Theatres  Act 
abolished  the  monopoly  of  the  patent  theatres — which  for  more 
than  a  hundred  years  had  confined  the  legitimate  drama  to 
Covent  Garden,  Drury  Lane  and  the  Haymarket— and  thus 
inaugurated  a  policy  of  free  trade. 

Dejazet’s  London  debut  in  1843  provoked  the  comment, 
applied  by  a  later  humorist  to  one  of  the  plays  of  Aristophanes, 
that  she  was  “as  broad  as  she  was  long  and  the  production 
of  a  ballet  on  Lady  Macbeth  in  the  same  year  prompted  the 
really  prophetic  suggestion  that  the  only  way  to  get  a  five-act 
tragedy  performed  was  to  omit  the  whole  of  the  dialogue  and 
s-i  273 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


give  the  role  of  heroine  to  a  premiere  danseuse.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  Taglioni  appeared  in  Electra  in  1845. 

In  1844  Punch  took  a  very  gloomy  view  of  the  dramatic 
outlook;  French  dishes  predominated,  Shakespeare  was  “Cib- 
berized,”  and  comedy  vulgarized  at  the  Adelphi  and  the 
Olympic,  Nor  was  he  cheered  by  the  activities  of  a  society 
called  the  Syncretics,  “whose  boast  it  is  that  they  can  write 
tragedies  which  no  company  can  act,  and  no  audience  can  sit 
out  ” — a  boast  which  might  be  triumphantly  re-echoed  by  similar 
societies  to-day.  A  Greek  play,  the  Antigone,  produced 
at  Covent  Garden  in  1845  was  an  early  harbinger  of  the  fruit¬ 
ful  movement  which  began  at  the  end  of  the  ’seventies.  Punch’s 
spirits,  however,  had  already  revived  somewhat  when  “Shake¬ 
speare  though  banished  from  Drury  Lane  and  Covent  Garden 
found  the  snuggest  asylum  near  the  New  River  ” — at  Sadler’s 
Wells  under  the  enterprising  management  of  Samuel  Phelps 
and  Mrs.  Warner  in  1844,  and  in  the  following  year  he  notes 
that  Shakespeare,  expelled  from  England  to  make  way  for  the 
ballet,  had  been  welcomed  in  Paris  in  the  person  of  Macready. 
The  public  knowledge  of  Shakespeare  at  the  time  was,  accord¬ 
ing  to  Punch,  confined  to  “elegant  extracts.” 

A  curious  sidelight  is  thrown  on  the  composition  of  theatri¬ 
cal  programmes  in  the  ’forties  by  the  ironical  regret  expressed  at 
the  passing  of  the  old  school  of  comic  song  :  “The  old  comic 
song  was  a  description  in  lively  verse  of  a  murder  or  a  suicide 
or  some  domestic  affliction,  and  if  sung  at  a  minor  theatre  just 
after  the  half-price  came  in,  never  missed  an  encore.”  At  the 
major  theatres,  and  especially  Drury  Lane,  the  cast  in  spectac¬ 
ular  plays  was  already  reinforced  by  four-footed  performers, 
and  processions  of  animals  through  the  streets  were  a  familiar 
mode  of  theatrical  advertisement.  Managerial  enterprise  has 
always  had  its  menagerial  side.  Foreign  bipeds,  however,  were 
not  always  popular,  and  when  Monte  Cristo  was  produced  at 
Drury  Lane  in  1848,  with  French  performers,  there  was  a 
patriotic  hostile  demonstration. 

Judged  by  modern  standards  salaries  were  modest.  Well- 
known  actors  are  charged  with  exortion  in  demanding  £60 
a  week,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  ,£60  was  exactly 

274 


The  Passing  of  Pantomimes 


all  that  Douglas  Jerrold  ever  made  out  of  his  most  popular  and 
successful  play — Black  Eyed  Susan.  Those  simple  souls  who 
lament  the  decadence  of  the  harlequinade  will  be  comforted  to 
learn  that  as  early  as  1843  Punch  deplores  the  triumph  of  scenery 
over  fun,  the  supersession  of  Grimaldi  by  Stanfield;  and  he 
returns  to  his  complaint  in  1849  in  “Christmas  is  not  what  it 
ought  to  be  :  — 

Pantomime’s  quite  on  the  wane, 

Though  vainly  they  try  to  enrich  it, 

By  calling,  again  and  again, 

For  “ Hot  Codlins  ”  and  "  Tippetywitchet.” 

The  stealing  of  poultry  by  clown 
Has  ceased  irresistible  sport  to  be, 

If  he  swallowed  a  turkey  it  wouldn’t  go  down ; 

Christmas  is  not  what  it  ought  to  be. 

The  rednhot  poker  business  has  at  any  rate  taken  an  un¬ 
conscionably  long  time  in  dying,  and  it  is  not  dead  yet.  But 
clowns,  outside  pantomime,  have  taken  on  a  new  lease  of  life 
thanks  to  Marceline  and  Grock.  The  present  writer  ventures  to 
predict  wonderful  possibilities  for  harlequinade  if  revived  and 
developed  on  the  romantic  and  grotesque  lines  of  the  Russian 
ballet,  to  say  nothing  of  the  opportunities  which  it  affords 
for  satire.  The  craze  for  child  actors  and  marionettes  in 
1852  led  Punch  to  bestow  an  ironical  commendation  on 
the  latter  on  the  ground  that  they  never  squabbled  in  the 
greenroom. 

Punch  was  all  for  clean  plays,  but  he  was  no  stickler  for 
puritanism  or  prudery.  In  this  same  year  of  1852  he  indulges 
in  well-deserved  satire  on  the  performances  in  Passion  week. 
All  theatres  were  supposed  to  be  shut,  with  the  result  that 
while  the  legitimate  drama  was  suppressed,  acrobats  or  mounte¬ 
banks  of  any  sort  could  give  entertainments.  We  may  note 
that  in  1853  Punch  suggested  that  theatrical  performances 
should  begin  at  8  instead  of  7  p.m. ;  6.30  p.m.  is  mentioned 
as  the  usual  dinner  hour.  Besides  the  actors  already  noted 
Charles  Mathews  and  Vestris,  J.  B.  Buckstone  and  Paul  Bed¬ 
ford  are  constantly  mentioned  and  in  the  main  with  good  will. 

275 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


The  feud  with  Charles  Kean  was  kept  up  to  the  end;  Punch 
speaks  of  his  “touchiness,”  and  certainly  spared  no  means  of 
getting  him  on  the  raw.  When  Kean  was  made  an  F.S.A.  in 
1857  it  was  maliciously  suggested  that  the  initials  stood  for 
Fair  Second-rate  Actor.  It  was  otherwise  with  Charles  Kemble, 
that  “first-rate  actor  of  second-rate  parts,”  as  Macready  styled 
the  father  of  the  gifted  and  delightful  Fanny,  and  Adelaide  the 
successful  opera  singer.  After  his  retirement  from  the  stage 
Kemble  gave  readings  from  Shakespeare  at  Willis’s  Rooms 
and  elsewhere  in  1844-.  5>  and  on  his  death  in  1854,  Punch 
paid  him  this  graceful  tubute  ;  — 

He  linked  us  with  a  past  of  scenic  art, 

Larger  and  loftier  than  now  is  known ; 

Less  mannered,  it  may  be,  our  stage  has  grown, 

Than  when  he  played  his  part. 

But  where  shall  we  now  find,  upon  our  scene, 

The  Gentleman  in  action,  look  and  word, 

Who  wears  his  wit,  as  he  would  wear  his  sword, 

As  polished  and  as  keen? 

Come  all  who  loved  him  :  ’tis  his  passing  bell : 

Look  your  last  look  :  cover  the  brave  old  face  : 

Kindly  and  gently  bear  him  to  his  place — 

Charles  Kemble,  fare  thee  well  ! 

A  whole  volume  might  be  written  on  the  glories,  the 
splendours,  and  the  absurdities  of  Italian  opera  in  the  ’forties 
and  ’fifties  as  revealed,  applauded,  and  criticized  in  the  columns 
of  Punch.  We  say  Italian  opera  advisedly,  because  the 
domination  of  Italian  composers  and  singers  and  of  the  Italian 
language  was  as  yet  practically  unassailed.  Germany,  it  is 
true,  had  already  begun  to  knock  at  the  door.  Lord  Mount 
Edgcumbe  in  his  Reminiscences  mentions  the  visit  of  a 
German  operatic  company  in  1832.  Staudigl,  who  “created” 
the  title-role  in  Mendelssohn’s  Elijah  when  it  was  produced 
at  Birmingham  in  1846,  is  mentioned  by  Punch  as  singing  in 
opera  in  London  in  1841.  Weber’s  Der  Freischiitz  was  given 

276 


The  Reign  of  Italian  Opera 


at  the  Haymarket  in  the  summer  of  1844.  But  the  greater 
lights  in  the  operatic  firmament,  judged  by  the  test  of  fashion¬ 
able  patronage  and  indeed  general  popularity,  were  all  Italian. 
The  meteoric  Malibran — Spanish  by  race  but  Italian  in  train¬ 
ing-— died  suddenly  and  tragically  in  1836,  and  Pasta,  her  great 
rival,  withdrew  from  the  stage  shortly  afterwards.  The  retire¬ 
ment  of  the  famous  tenor  Rubini  is  mentioned  in  Punch’s  first 
volume,  but  his  popularity  was  eclipsed  by  that  of  Mario,  who 


LABLACHE 


reigned  without  a  rival  in  virtue  of  his  triple  endowment  of 
voice,  good  looks,  and  elegance.  His  triumphs  were  shared  by 
Grisi,  and  the  kings  and  queens  of  song  on  the  lyric  stage 
in  these  two  decades  were  either  Italians  by  birth — e.g.,  Grisi, 
Alboni,  whom  Punch  likens  to  a  “jolly  blooming  she-Bacchus,” 
Persiani,  and  Piccolomini— or  trained  in  the  Italian  school  and 
distinguished  by  their  association  with  Italian  opera,  such  as 
Sontag  and  Jenny  Lind,  Duprez  the  French  tenor,  and 
Lablache,  who  was  born  and  bred  in  Italy  though  of  Fra  neo- 
Hibernian  parentage,  the  greatest  in  bulk,  in  volume  and 
beauty  of  voice,  in  dramatic  versatility  and  in  genial  humour  of 
all  operatic  basses.  So  too  with  the  composers.  It  was  the 
heyday  of  Rossini,  Donizetti,  Bellini  and  the  earlier  Verdi, 
whom  Punch  in  1852  irreverently  styles  the  “crack  composer  ” 
as  he  cracked  so  many  voices.  Punch  cannot  be  blamed  if  he 
failed  to  foresee  in  the  crude  vigour  of  Nahucco  and  the  hectic 


277 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


sentimentality  of  Traviata  and  Trovatore  possibilities  of  that 
wonderful  Indian  summer  of  genius  which  began  with  A'ida 
and  culminated  in  Otello  and  Falstaff.  Michael  Costa  was 
the  conductor  par  excellence,  who  took  outrageous  liberties  with 
scores,  but  was  none  the  less  a  most  efficient  operatic  drill- 
sergeant.  Here  our  debt  to  Italy  was  ingeniously  expressed 
— though  not  by  Punch — in  the  Latin  tag  :  Costam  subduximus 
Apennino.  Balfe,  it  is  true,  had  scored  a  resounding  success 
in  1843  with  The  Bohemian  Girl,  which  still  holds  the  boards. 
The  fact  that  it  is  commonly  known  in  the  profession  as  “The 
Bo  Girl”  is  perhaps  the  best  index  to  its  artistic  value.  But 
Balfe  was  at  least  equally  well  known  as  a  conductor  of  Italian 
opera.  Punch  supported  the  claims  of  native  and  national 
opera,  and  regretted  that  Adelaide  Kemble,  “our  first  English 
operatic  singer,”  should  not  have  made  an  effort  in  its  behalf 
in  connexion  with  the  venture  at  Drury  Lane  in  1841,  when  a 
Mr.  Rodwell  was  the  only  native  composer  represented.  The 
reason  alleged  for  the  rejection  of  other  English  operas  sub¬ 
mitted  was  the  badness  of  the  libretti.  Italian  opera  libretti 
were  often  satirized  by  Punch,  but  those  of  Fitzball  and  Bunn 
were,  if  possible,  worse. 

Italian  opera,  however,  the  only  opera  which  really  counted 
in  the  social  world,  was  the  luxury  and  appanage  of  the  nobility 
and  gentry.  The  importance  and  significance  of  the  institution 
at  this  time,  and  for  many  years  afterwards,  are  really  very 
well  summed  up  in  an  article  which  Punch  reproduced  from  the 
Morning  Post  in  1843  with  italics  and  comments  of  his  own  at 
the  expense  of  “Jenkins”  :  — 

“The  Opera  is  the  place  of  rendezvous  of  those  persons  who,  de 
facto,  as  well  as  de  jure,  are,  in  their  several  different  spheres,  the 
leaders  and  models  of  society.  It  is  not  only  to  hear  an  Opera  which 
they  may  have  seen  a  hundred  times  that  the  distinguished  sub¬ 
scribers  assemble.  There,  most  men  of  consequence  literary  and 
artistical  (pretty  egotist)  as  well  as  the  noble  and  fashionable, 
have  agreed  to  meet  during  the  season.  There,  the  fair  tenants  of 
the  boxes  receive  those  friendly  and  agreeable  visits  which  do  not 
consist  in  the  delivery  of  a  piece  of  engraved  postcard  to  a  servant. 
Charming  causeries  are  constantly  proceeding  sotto  voce  (of  course 

278 


“  Jenkins  ”  as  Musical  Critic 


Jenkins  listens),  the  music  filling  up  the  pauses  of  a  conversation 
which  the  more  often  it  is  interrupted  by  the  bright  efforts  of  the 
singers — with  the  more  zest  and  piquancy  it  is  resumed.  We,  whose 
office  it  is  to  record  daily  events — things  as  they  are — and  hold  the 
glass  up  to  fashion  (whilst  fashion  arranges  its  evening  tie)  can  but 
seek  to  imitate  this  course  of  things — and  we  do  so  with  only 
one  regret — that  motives  of  delicacy  compel  us  to  reflect  rather 
the  general  sentiments  that  prevail,  than  those  private  opinions 
which  have  most  piquancy.” 

For  sheer  ecstasy  of  flunkeydom  “Jenkins”  was  unsur¬ 
passed  and  unsurpassable,  but  at  least  he  was  capable  of 
recognizing  native  talent,  as  may  be  gleaned  from  his  notice 
of  Semiramide  in  English  in  the  winter  of  1842  : — 

We  cannot  omit  another  little  extract  from  a  notice  of 
Semiramide : — ■ 

“Of  the  gems  of  this  sublime  opera  we  must  particularly  direct 
attention  to  Mrs.  Alfred  Shaw’s  manner  and  divinely  expressive 
way  of  singing  her  Cavatina,  ‘  Ah  !  that  day  I  well  remember,’ 
where  her  sublime  contralto,  controlled  by  the  most  scientific  skill, 
and  whose  soft  diapason  tones  fall  like  seraphs’  harmony, 
penetrates  the  heart  with  chastening  ardour  and  inspiring  effect. 
Again  the  contralto  and  soprano  duet,  ‘  Dark  days  of  Sorrow,’ 
between  Miss  Kemble  and  Mrs.  Shaw ;  what  deep  pathos ! 
what  eloquence  discoursing !  Mark  the  clear,  brilliant,  towering 
sublimity  of  expression  as  Semiramide  holds  on  the  C  in  alt.,  while 
the  thirds  and  fifths  of  Assaca’s  deep  mellow  notes  from  D  to  G 
in  a  full  octave  and  a  half  are  filling  in  a  sublime  harmony  of  melody 
of  the  most  touching  and  refined  order.” 

But  if  extravagant  homage  was  paid  to  the  queens  of 
song  much  was  also  expected  of  them.  The  truth  of  this 
is  seen  in  the  episode  chronicled  under  the  heading  “Persiani 
at  Sea  ”  :  — 

An  enthusiastic  audience  is  assembled  to  hurrah  Persiani — to 
cry  hrava — to  throw  bouquets,  etc.  The  crowd  open  their  mouths 
to  receive  the  honeyed  voice  of  a  prima  donna,  and  Doctor  Wardrop 
throws  blue  pills  into  them.  The  following  notice  proves  the  truth 
of  our  metaphor  : — 

“Madame  Persiani  continues  to  suffer  so  severely  from  the  effects 

279 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


of  sea-sickness,  accompanied  with  violent  retching,  that  it  is  im¬ 
possible  for  her  to  appear  this  evening'. 

“James  Wardrop,  M.D.” 

On  this,  says  The  Times,  “the  audience  were  at  first  disposed 
to  grumble,  and  gave  many  signs  of  dissatisfaction.” 

The  audience  were  perfectly  right.  They  were  justified  in  becom¬ 
ing  very  savage  at  the  violent  retching  of  a  sea-sick  St.  Cecilia ; 
and  had  she  had  the  effrontery  to  die,  they  would,  we  are  convinced, 
have  been  perfectly  exonerated,  by  all  the  laws  of  English  freedom, 
in  breaking  the  chandeliers  and  tearing  up  the  benches  ! 

The  private  life  of  operatic  celebrities  was  as  a  rule  no 
concern  of  the  opera-going  public,  but  the  line  was  drawn  at 
Lola  Montez,  whose  engagement  to  dance  at  Drury  Lane  in 


THE  SKATING  BALLET 


1843  was  cancelled  in  deference  to  general  protests.  The  ballet 
was  an  integral  part  and  commanding  attraction  of  the  old 
Italian  opera.  The  most  wonderful  account  of  this  “explosion 
of  all  the  upholsteries”  has  been  given  by  Carlyle  at  a  slightly 
later  date.  In  the  ’forties  the  shining  lights  were  Taglioni 
— whose  skirts  were  quite  long — Cerito,  Fanny  Ellsler  and 
Carlotta  Grisi,  cousin  of  the  prima  donna,  a  wonderful  quartet 
on  whose  gyrations  and  levitations  “Jenkins”  showered  all  the 
adulatory  epithets  in  his  polyglot  vocabulary.  The  skating 
ballet  in  Le  Prophete,  popular  in  1849,  is  the  subject  of  a 
charming  little  sketch  in  Punch,  and  this  production  was 
notable  vocally  for  the  appearance  of  Pauline  Viardot-Garcia, 
the  greatest  actress,  the  most  accomplished  and  enlightened 
musician,  and  the  most  interesting  personality  of  all  nineteenth 
century  prime  donne.  Henriette  Sontag,  however,  was  the 

280 


Jenny  Lind 


popular  operatic  heroine  of  the  year,  graceful,  charming  and 
still  handsome,  though  no  longer  in  her  first  youth,1  a  perfect 
singer,  an  incomparable  Susanna  (as  Punch  admitted),  though 
lacking  dramatic  force — Sontag,  of  whom  Catalani  said  that  she 
was  the  first  in  her  genre,  but  that  her  genre  was  not  the  first. 

Great  singers  came  and  went  but  Punch  never  wavered  in  his 
allegiance  to  Jenny  Lind.  Though  her  career  on  the  lyric 
stage  was  brief,  she  is  more  often  and  more  enthusiastically 
mentioned  than  any  other  singer,  and  for  reasons  which  are 
revealed  in  the  following  lines:  — 

THE  NIGHTINGALE  THAT  SINGS  IN  THE  WINTER 

Sweetest  creature,  in  song  without  rival  or  peer, 

Far  more  inwardly  vibrate  thy  notes  than  the  ear, 

For  there  speaks  in  that  music,  pure,  gentle,  refined, 

The  exquisite  voice  of  a  beautiful  mind — 

Of  a  spirit  of  earnestness,  goodness  and  truth, 

Of  a  heart  full  of  tender  compassion  and  ruth, 

Ever  ready  to  comfort,  and  suooour,  and  bless, 

In  sorrow  and  suffering,  in  want  and  distress. 

Now  this  Nightingale  rare,  in  the  winter  who  sings, 

Being  not  yet  a  seraph,  is  one  without  wings; 

And  her  name,  which  has  travelled  as  wide  as  the  wind, 

Is  kind-hearted,  generous,  dear  JENNY  LIND. 

When  her  retirement  was  rumoured  Punch  declared  that  the 
Bishop  of  Norwich  should  rather  persuade  her  to  remain  on  the 
stage  than  quit  it,  because  of  her  example.  Reports  of  her 
engagement  to  a  Mr.  Harris  prompted  the  remark  that  “the 
people  would  never  permit  it.”  Indeed  there  were  some  per¬ 
sons  as  sceptical  of  his  existence  as  Mrs.  Gamp  was  of  his 


1  She  had  already  been  twenty-five  years  on  the  stage  and  was  a  link  with 
Beethoven,  having  sung  the  soprano  part  in  both  the  Ninth  Symphony  and 
the  Mass  in  D  at  the  historic  production  of  these  great  works  in  Vienna 
in  1824.  Lablache’s  generous  homage  to  Beethoven’s  genius  on  the  occasion 
of  his  funeral  is  too  well  known  to  need  more  than  a  passing  word  of 
grateful  recognition. 


281 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  Engl  mid 


female  namesake.  Her  last  appearance  was  in  May,  1849,  to 
assist  Lumley,  the  unlucky  impresario,  then  in  difficulties,  in 
response  to  appeals  which  were  especially  vehement  in  Punch. 
lie  asserted  that  her  secession  was  a  national  calamity  :  she 
“made  the  stage  better  without  making  herself  worse”;  and 
Mozart’s  aid  was  invoked  in  an  imaginary  address  from  the 
composer  of  Don  Giovanni. 


The  engagement  to  Mr.  Harris  was  “declared  off”  imme¬ 
diately  afterwards,  but  Jenny  Lind,  in  spite  of  Punch’s  repeated 
appeals,  adhered  to  her  decision  to  quit  the  stage.  As  late 
as  1856  Punch  still  hoped  she  would  reconsider  her  verdict, 
and  her  farewell  concerts  at  Exeter  Hall  in  the  summer  of  that 
year  inspired  the  characteristic  remark  that  “if  any  sweetening 

282 


Popular  Favourites  in  1844 


process  could  purify  the  building  it  would  be  such  singing  as 
hers.” 

In  the  early  ’forties  Norma  was  the  opera  most  frequently 
mentioned.  Punch  published  the  stories  of  several  of  the  most 
popular  operas  in  verse.  A  fragment  from  Linda  di  Chamouni 
may  suffice 

Then  Mario  warbles  a  beautiful  bar 
About  the  revenge  of  his  cruel  mam ma, 

Who,  finding  to  Linda  his  faith  has  been  plighted, 

Resolves  to  another  to  get  him  united  : 

He  curses  his  fate  in  a  charming  falsetto , 

Gives  way  to  despair  in  a  voce  di  petto. 

And,  rather  than  grief  in  his  bosom  should  fester, 

He  calls  out  for  death  in  a  voce  di  testa: 

Of  life  his  farewell  he  seems  willing  to  take, 

And  gives  on  addio  a  delicate  shake. 

The  passage  ia  managed  with  exquisite  skill ; 

And  Linda — acquainted  with  Mario’s  trill — 

Lets  him  hold  it  as  long  as  he’s  able  to  do, 

Awaiting  its  finish  to  take  for  her  cue. 

Opera  singers  were  great  public  favourites,  but  if  Punch 
is  to  be  believed  they  did  not  stand  first.  In  a  list  of  the  great 
features  of  the  season  of  1844  he  puts  the  Polka  and  Tom 
Thumb  first,  followed  by  Cerito  (the  dancer),  Grisi,  Mario, 
Persiani,  Lablache  and  the  Ojibbeway  Indians,  who  were 
“horrid  but  interesting.”  The  ways  and  personalities  of  the 
operatic  stars  are  genially  hit  off  in  an  article  on  “the  Migra¬ 
tion  of  the  Italian  Singing  Birds.”  It  is  pleasant  to  find 
Lablache — Stentor  and  male  Siren  in  one — put  first  as  a  bird 
unrivalled  for  the  combined  power  and  richness  of  his  song. 
“He  is  a  bird  that  can  sing,  and  will  sing,  never  requiring 
any  compulsion  to  make  him  sing.”  Punch  alludes  to  his 
genial  disposition,  his  magnanimity  in  undertaking  small 
parts  to  secure  a  perfect  ensemble,  but  omits  to  mention  his 
humour.  Lablache  was  once  living  in  the  same  house  with 
Tom  Thumb,  and  a  stranger  who  came  to  visit  the  “  General  ” 
strayed  into  Lablache’s  room.  Aghast  at  the  bulk  of  the  in- 

283 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


mate  the  visitor  explained  “I  thought  Tom  Thumb  lived  here.” 
“Yes,”  said  Lablache,  “but  when  I  am  at  home  I  take  it  easy.” 
Lablache  had  as  much  brains  as  body,  and  elsewhere  Punch 
happily  quotes  in  his  praise  the  line  of  Virgil  i:  ingentes  animos 
ingenti  in  pectore  versat.  The  notices  of  Grisi  and  Mario  are 
worth  transcribing  :  — 

“THE  GRISI” 

Among  Italian  singing  birds  the  female  is  equally  musical,  to 
say  the  least,  with  the  male.  The  song  of  the  Grisi  is  remarkable 
for  its  variety,  strength,  and  sweetness.  The  habits  of  the  Grisi, 
from  what  we  have  been  enabled  to  glean  respecting  them,  seem  to 
be  those  of  a  bird  that  continues,  in  a  considerable  measure,  to 
enjoy  its  own  existence.  Whether  rising  with  the  lark  is  one  of 
them,  or  not,  we  do  not  know,  but  we  are  certain  that  singing  with 
it  is ;  for  the  Grisi  may  undoubtedly  be  said  to  vie  with  the  lark, 
or  even  the  nightingale,  in  singing.  The  Grisi  is  evidently  a  bird 
of  a  kind  disposition,  and  susceptible  of  affection  and  attachment; 
but  we  should  conjecture  that  she  would  be  apt  to  peck  if  ruffled. 
The  kind  of  food  best  adapted  for  this  very  fascinating  songstress 
is  to  be  obtained  at  M.  Verrey’s. 

“THE  MARIO  ” 

A  very  pleasant  vocalist.  He  is  now  regarded  as  an  efficient 
substitute  for  the  Rubini,  to  whose  note,  his  own,  in  point  of 
quality,  is  somewhat  similar.  He  differs,  however,  from  the  latter 
bird,  in  singing,  like  a  good  bullfinch,  the  airs  which  he  has  acquired 
without  any  admixture  of  certain  “native  wood-notes  wild”  which, 
however  well  enough  in  their  way,  are  no  embellishment  to  such  music 
as  Mozart’s.  We  lately  had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  him  deliver 
“  II  mio  tesoro  ”  with  very  commendable  fidelity.  He  is  in  the  habit 
of  being  frequently  encored  ;  which  is  the  only  habit  our  knowledge 
enables  us  to  ascribe  to  him.  So  highly  are  these  Italian  singing 
birds  prized  that  many  of  them  fetch,  on  an  average,  fifty  pounds 
a  night  for  a  mere  performance.  The  sum  that  would  be  required 
to  buy  one  of  them  up  altogether  would  be  enormous.  Whether  it 
is  the  length  of  John  Bull’s  ears  that  causes  him  to  pay  so  dearly 
for  their  gratification,  we  do  not  know.  Would  he  give  as  much 
to  relieve  the  national  distress?  Perhaps  :  if  it  were  set  to  music 
and  sung  at  the  Italian  opera. 

The  last  lines  of  this  passage  lend  point  to  a  sardonic 
remark  in  an  earlier  volume  :  — 

284 


Musical  Grab 


The  following-  extract  is  as  honest  as  it  is  true.  It  is  written 
by  Monsieur  Henri  Blanchard,  in  the  Gazette  Musicale: — 

“Are  you  aware,”  he  asks,  “that  the  Italian  singers,  the  French 
and  German  instrumentalists,  visit  your  shores  solely  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  exercising  that  spirit  of  commerce  which  presides  over 
everything  with  you,  and  not  to  ask  for  the  opinion  of  Englishmen 
on  the  subject  of  art?  They  come  to  make  amends  in  Paris,  as  they 
all  say,  for  the  trading  system  they  have  been  carrying  on  in 
England,  and  to  spend  the  money  which  they  have  earned  with  so 
much  ennui  ” 

Punch  begs  to  lay  the  above  on  the  reading-desk  of  his  gracious 
mistress  the  Queen,  and  humbly  prays  that  her  Majesty  will  merci¬ 
fully  consider  the  condition  of  the  French,  German  and  Italian 
ennuyis — and  dispense  for  the  future  with  their  services. 

This  familiar  wail  is  repeated  in  1849  when  London  was 
likened  to  a  musical  Babel  with  two  Italian,  one  German,  and 
one  French  operas;  Hungarian,  French  and  other  foreign  prime 
donne ;  Strauss’s  band  and  Styrian  minstrels.  M.  Blanchard’s 
view  was  further  confirmed  by  a  curious  episode  worthy  of 
note  for  the  first  introduction  of  the  name  Wagner  to  Punch’s 
readers  and  indeed  to  the  British  public.  It  was  not  the 
great  Richard,  however,  but  his  niece  Johanna,  an  opera  singer 
of  considerable  repute,  who  was  concerned.  In  1852  she 
simultaneously  accepted  engagements  at  both  opera  houses,  a 
policy  which  led  to  protracted  litigation  in  Chancery.  Her 
father  was  so  frank  as  to  say  that  “  England  was  worth  nothing 
except  for  her  money,”  and  Punch  in  his  frequent  references 
to  the  incident  employs  the  term  “Wagnerism”  to  express  the 
point  of  view  of  opera-singers  who  would  not  abide  by  their 
contracts.  The  unfortunate  Johanna,  “the  wandering  min¬ 
strel,”  as  Punch  called  her,  never  appeared  in  opera  in  London, 
but  apparently  did  sing  at  Court.  The  engagement  of  Richard 
Wagner  to  conduct  the  concerts  of  the  Philharmonic  Society 
in  1855  left  Punch  not  merely  cold  but  pugnaciously 
antagonistic. 

The  “music  of  the  future  ”  prompted  him  to  rude  remarks 
about  “long-eared  musicians,”  and  he  returns  to  the  seat  of 
the  scornful  in  a  curt  notice  headed  “NOT  a  Magic  Minstrel  ”  : — 

285 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


Herr  Wagner,  Professor  of  the  “Music  of  the  Future,”  appears, 
in  conducting  at  the  Philharmonic,  to  have  made  strange  work  with 
the  music  of  all  time.  He  alters  Mozart,  it  appears,  if  not  exactly 
as  a  parish  clerk  once  said  that  he  had  altered  Haydn  for  the  sing¬ 
ing  gallery,  yet  in  a  manner  nearly  as  audacious,  altering  “ allegro  ” 
to  “ moderate)  ” ;  “ andante  ”  to  “adagio”;  “ allegretto  ”  to  “an¬ 
dante”;  and  “allegro”  again  to  “prestissimo.”  Wagner  would 
seem  strongly  to  resemble  his  namesake  in  Faust,  in  the  particular 
wherein  that  Wagner  differs  from  his  master — that  is,  in  the  circum¬ 
stance  of  being  no  conjuror. 

The  sudden  disappearance  of  that  Italianized  Westphalian, 
the  fiery  Cruvelli,  was  a  nine  days’  wonder  in  the  operatic 
world  in  1854  and  is  duly  chronicled  in  Punch.  Towards  the 
end  of  this  period  Piccolomini,  a  singer  of  small  calibre  but 
attractive  personality,  achieved  great  popularity  in  the  role  of 
the  consumptive  heroine  of  La  Traviata,  and  Punch  celebrated 
the  craze  of  “  Piccolomania,”  as  he  called  it,  in  the  following 
travesty  :  — 

Art  is  long  and  time  is  fleeting, 

But  of  genius  the  soul, 

Ordinary  talent  beating, 

Reaches  at  one  stride  the  goal. 

In  the  operatic  battle, 

In  the  Pnma  Donna’s  life 

Quit  the  herd — the  vocal  cattle, 

Be  a  Grisi  in  the  strife. 

Trust  no  promise,  howe’er  pleasant, 

Not  who  may  be,  but  who  are ; 

Piccolomini  at  present, 

Is  the  bright  particular  star. 

Outside  the  opera  houses,  music  in  the  period  under  review 
in  this  volume  may  be  said  to  begin  and  end  with  Jullien,  so 
far  as  Punch  is  concerned.  Jullien  is  roughly  handled  in 
the  very  first  number  of  Punch.  In  the  autumn  of  1857  satire 
has  given  place  to  affection  and  generous  recognition.  And 
Punch  was  right,  for  underneath  all  his  superficial  buffooneries 

286 


Jullien 


Jullien  was  a  great  educator  and  reformer.  The  present  writer 
vividly  remembers  an  anecdote  told  him  by  the  late  Sir  Charles 
Halle  in  the  ’eighties.  After  giving  a  description  of  Jullien’s 
flamboyant  attire — on  one  occasion  he  wore  a  shirt  front  em¬ 
broidered  with  a  picture  of  a  nymph  playing  a  flute  under  a 


JULLIEN’S  DESPAIR 

palm  tree— and  his  habit,  after  performing  a  solo  on  his  golden 
piccolo,  of  flinging  himself  with  a  beau  geste  of  exhaustion  into 
a  gorgeously  upholstered  armchair,  Sir  Charles  Hall4  went  on 
to  recall  how  Jullien  had  once  said  to  him  :  “To  succeed  in 
music  in  England,  one  must  be  either  a  great  genius  like  you, 
or  a  great  charlatan  like  me.”  Now  Jullien  had  been  a  failure 
as  a  student  at  the  Paris  Conservatoire — but  so  had  Verdi  at 

287 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


Milan.  But  there  is  no  warrant  whatever  for  Punch’s  state¬ 
ment  that  he  was  “a  ci-devant  waiter  of  a  quarante-sous  traiteur.” 
Of  the  charlatan  side  of  Jullien,  the  love  of  noise  and,  again 
to  quote  Carlyle,  of  the  “explosion  of  all  the  upholsteries,” 
Punch  gives  a  graphic  if  severe  picture  in  the  verses  which 
appear  in  his  first  number  :  — 

MONSIEUR  JULLIEN 

“  One  !  ” — crash  ! 

“  Two  ! ’’—clash  ! 

“Three  !  ” — dash  ! 

“  Four  !  ” — smash  ! 

Diminuendo, 

Now  crescendo: — 

Thus  play  the  furious  band, 

Led  by  the  kid-gloved  hand 

Of  Jullien — that  Napoleon  of  quadrille, 

Of  Piccolo-nians  shrillest  of  the  shrill ; 

Perspiring  raver 
Over  a  semi-quaver; 

Who  tunes  his  pipes  so  well,  he’ll  tell  you  that 
The  natural  key  of  Johnny  Bull’s — A  flat. 

Demon  of  discord,  with  moustaches  cloven — 
Arch-impudent  improver  of  Beethoven — 

Tricksy  Professor  of  charlatanerie — 

Inventor  of  musical  artillery — 

Barbarous  rain  and  thunder  maker — 

Unconscionable  money  taker — 

Travelling  about  both  near  and  far, 

Toll  to  exact  at  every  bar, 

What  brings  thee  here  again 
To  desecrate  old  Drury’s  fane? 

Egregious  attitudiniser  ! 

Antic  fifer  !  com’st  to  advise  her 
’Gainst  intellect  and  sense  to  close  her  walls? 

To  raze  her  benches, 

That  Gallic  wenches 

Might  play  their  brazen  antics  at  masked  balls? 

But  when  Punch  assails  Jullien  for  leaving  his  “stew-pans 
and  meat-oven  To  make  a  fricassee  of  the  great  Beet-hoven  ”  and 
“saucily  serve  Mozart  with  sauce-piquant,”  and  bids  him  “put 

288 


Early  Promenade  Concerts 


your  hat  on,  coupez  votre  baton,  Bah,  Va! ! !  ” — Punch  was  both 
rude  and  ungenerous.  From  the  very  first  at  his  Concerts 
d’Ete  and  then  at  the  Promenade  Concerts,  Jullien  was  a 
popularizer  of  good  music.  He  gave  his  public  waltzes,  “Row 
Polkas,”  and  explosive  Army  Quadrilles,  but  he  also  sand¬ 
wiched  Beethoven  and  Mozart  between  the  coarser  viands  of  his 
musical  menu.  So  while  he  was  credited  with  the  intention 


“GENTS”  AT  THE  PROMENADE  CONCERT 


of  bringing  out  Stabat  Mater  waltzes— by  no  means  a  difficult 
feat  with  Rossini’s  work — and  a  Dead  March  gallopade,  we 
must  never  forget  that  he  was  the  first  conductor  to  introduce 
symphonic  music  to  the  masses  and  the  authentic  pioneer  of 
the  movement  which  Sir  Henry  Wood  has  carried  on  at  the 
Queen’s  Hall  for  the  last  twenty  years  and  more.  Modern 
music  strikes  heavily  on  the  naked  ear,  but  Jullien  was  in  the 
habit  of  reinforcing  instruments  of  percussion  with  explosives, 
and  Punch  suggests  in  1849  that  his  Concerts  Monstres  should 
be  held  on  Salisbury  Plain  to  give  elbow  room  for  his  “stunning 
performances.”  His  chevelure,  bis  waistcoats  and  waistbands 
were  too  conspicuous  to  escape  Punch’s  vigilant  eye,  and 
Jullien  was  no  doubt  content  that  it  should  be  so,  for  he  was  a 
T— 1  289 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


master  of  the  art  of  reclame.  He  is  habitually  alluded  to  as 
“the  Mons,”  primarily  as  the  diminutive  for  “Monsieur,” 
but  mainly  because  he  was  “the  Mont  Blanc  of  Music.” 
The  excesses  of  Jazz  Bands  of  to-day  are  foreshadowed  in  a 
description  of  the  “tongs  and  bones”  music  at  the  Promenade 
Concerts.  But  the  author  of  the  notice  of  Jullien1  in  the 
D.N.B.  conveys  a  wrong  impression  when  he  speaks  of  Punch 
as  only  ridiculing  Jullien.  Already  Punch  had  learned  to  recog¬ 
nize  his  merits,  and,  while  rebuking  him  for  his  extravagant 
conducting  of  flashy  and  trashy  pieces,  renders  homage  to  his 
reverence  for  good  music.  Thenceforward  the  references  to 
“the  Mons”  are  in  the  main  friendly.  The  Almanack  for 
1852  speaks  of  the  “Julian  (Jullien)  Era  ”  in  music.  Jullien’s 
opera  Peter  the  Great  is  tenderly  handled  in  the  autumn  of 
the  same  year,  and,  when  he  set  out  for  his  tour  in  the  States, 
Punch  sped  the  parting  minstrel  in  some  verses  which  are  an 
admirable  and  faithful  summary  of  his  services  to  musical 
education  in  England:  — 


FAREWELL  TO  JULLIEN 

Composer  of  Peter  the  Great , 

Ere  over  Atlantic’s  broad  swell 
The  steamer  shall  carry  thee,  proud  of  her  freight, 

Let  me  bid  thee  a  hearty  farewell. 

With  ophicleides,  cymbals,  and  gongs 
At  first  thou  didst  wisely  begin, 

And  bang  the  dull  ears  of  the  popular  throngs, 

As  though  ’twere  to  beat  music  in. 

With  national  measures  of  France, 

With  polka,  with  waltz,  and  with  jig, 

The  “gents”  thou  excitedst  to  caper  and  dance, 

As  Orpheus  did  ox,  ass,  and  pig. 

Then,  leading  them  on,  by  degrees, 

To  a  feeling-  for  Genius  and  Art, 

Thou  mad’st  them  to  feel  that  Beethoven  could  please, 

And  that  all  was  not  “slow  ”  in  Mozart. 

1  Jullien  was,  we  assume,  a  naturalized  British  subject,  though  he  appears 
in  Larousse. 


290 


John  Hullah 


The  end  of  the  poor  “Mons”  was  pitiful.  He  was,  when 
he  chose  to  lay  aside  his  mountebankery,  an  excellent  and 
inspiring  conductor.  But  he  was  hopelessly  extravagant  and 
improvident,  and  always  in  money  difficulties.  In  the  fire 
which  destroyed  Covent  Garden  Theatre  in  1856  he  lost  all  his 
musical  library  and  other  possessions,  and  a  disastrous  venture 
at  the  Royal  Surrey  Gardens  completed  his  ruin.  There  is 
no  “ridicule”  in  the  tribute  paid  to  the  unlucky  Jullien  in  the 
autumn  of  1857,  when  Punch  describes  him  as  “a  most  worthy 
fellow,  at  whose  eccentricities  I  have  made  good  fun  in  his 
days  of  glory,  but  whom  I  have  always  recognized  as  a  true 
artist  and  a  true  friend  to  art.”  But  things  went  from  bad  to 
worse  with  the  eccentric  artist,  and  Jullien  died  bankrupt 
and  insane  in  a  lunatic  asylum  in  Paris  in  i860,  at  the  age  of 
forty-eight. 

Another  musical  pioneer  on  far  more  orthodox  lines  whom 
Punch  recognized  was  John  Hullah,  whose  singing  classes  for 
the  people  at  Exeter  Hall  in  1842  prompted  the  comment:  “If 
music  for  the  people  be  a  fine  moral  pabulum,  is  the  drama  for 
the  people  to  be  considered  of  no  value  whatever  ?  ”  More  sym¬ 
pathetic  is  the  reference,  under  the  heading  of  “Io  Bacche,” 
to  the  performance  of  Bach’s  Mass  in  B  minor  at  one  of  Hullah’s 
monthly  concerts  in  St.  Martin’s  Flail  in  March,  1851.  Hullah, 
who  devoted  his  life  to  popular  instruction  in  vocal  music,  well 
deserved  the  commendation  :  no  fewer  than  25,000  pupils  passed 
through  his  singing  classes  between  1840  and  i860.  The 
standard  of  taste  in  vocal  music  was  not  high  in  the  early 
’forties :  Punch  satirizes  the  prevalent  sentimentality  in  songs 
by  suggesting  in  1842  as  a  title  “Brush  back  that  briny  tear.” 
On  the  instrumental  side  we  have  to  note  the  entrance  of  the 
banjo  in  the  same  year.  Musical  eccentricities  and  monstrosities 
are  duly  noted.  There  seems  to  have  been  a  special  effervescence 
of  them  in  1856,  when  a  performer  who  hammered  out  tunes  on 
his  chin,  and  Picco,  the  blind  Sardinian  penny  whistler,  en¬ 
joyed  a  fleeting  popularity.  In  the  same  year  American  negro 
dialect  ballads  were  much  in  vogue,  a  tyranny  from  which  we 
are  not  yet  relieved.  The  concertina  became  fashionable  much 
earlier,  in  1844,  owing  to  the  remarkable  performances  of  the 

291 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


JV]ANner$.  a>nd  CvsroMS.oF.y*  .ENGlyshe  in  (849 


rvA  ■Fp-.iv.FrJENDS  To -TEA.  AND  A  LYTTlE  •  MvSYCfc 


Italian  virtuoso  Giulio  Regondi,  but  is  seldom  heard  nowadays 
outside  of  music  halls.  Turgenieff  said  that  the  zither  always 
reminded  him  of  a  Jew  trying  to  sing  through  his  nose.  With¬ 
out  going  so  far  as  that,  one  may  say  that  it  would  be  hard 
to  carry  out  Sir  Edward  Elgar’s  favourite  expression-mark 
nobilmente  on  the  concertina.  With  regard  to  fashionable 
music  Punch  complains  in  1849  that  execution  was  everything, 
composition  little  or  nothing.  He  only  anticipated  the  com¬ 
plaint  of  a  later  satirist  who  wrote  :  — 

Spare,  execution,  spare  thy  victim’s  bones — 

Composed  by  Mozart,  decomposed  by  Jones. 

Specimens  of  fashionable  musical  criticism  have  already  been 
given  under  the  head  of  opera.  Punch  had  the  root  of  the 

292 


11  Punch' s  ”  Taste  in  Music 


matter  in  him  but  was  lacking  in  technique,  and  confesses  him¬ 
self  unable  to  make  out  what  a  critic  meant  by  alluding  to  a  new 
tenor’s  “admirable  portamento.”  He  was  on  much  more  sure 
ground  when  he  attacked  Balfe  for  mangling  Beethoven  at 
the  Grand  National  Concerts  at  Her  Majesty’s  Theatre  in 
1850,  when  trivial  rubbish  was  sandwiched  between  move¬ 
ments  of  the  Eroica  Symphony.  A  second  visit,  however, 
enabled  him  to  withdraw  his  censure,  as  the  Eroica  and  C  minor 
Symphonies  were  performed  without  being  cut  in  two.  Punch 
had  “no  use  for”  Wagner,  as  we  have  seen,  but  he  fully  appre¬ 
ciated  his  romantic  forerunner  Weber;  his  salutation  of  Spohr 
and  Hummel  as  classics  was  perhaps  a  trifle  premature.  The 


TASTE  IN  1854— VILLIKINS  AND  HIS  DINAH  IN  THE 
DRAWING-ROOM 

YOUNG  Lady  (who  ought  to  know  better)  :  “  Now,  William,  you  are  not  low 
enough  yet.  Begin  again  at  ‘  he  took  the  cold  pizen.”’ 

293 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


names  of  the  various  musical  celebrities  who  figure  in  the 
pages  of  Punch  in  this  period  afford  a  striking  illustration  of 
the  transitoriness  of  the  fame  of  the  executant.  Who  but 
experts  in  musical  biography  know  of  Sivori  and  Ole  Bull  now  ? 
Even  the  laurels  of  the  great  Thalberg,  the  most  “gentlemanly  ” 
of  all  the  great  pianists,  author  of  the  most  fashionable  varia¬ 
tions,  have  withered  sadly  in  the  last  half  century.  Punch 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  specially  impressed  by  Liszt,  the 
greatest  of  them  all,  and  misspells  his  name  “Listz”  on  the 
occasion  of  a  perfunctory  reference  to  him  in  1843.  The 
favourite  composers  of  waltzes  were  Strauss,  the  founder  of 
the  dynasty  of  the  Viennese  waltz-kings,  and  Labitzky.  To 
the  present  generation  the  name  Strauss  has  totally  different 
associations;  and  we  live  so  fast  that  an  enlightened  writer  has 
recently  declared  that  the  once  redoubtable  Richard  is  also 
dead.  It  would  be  an  overstatement  to  say  that  conductors 
were  of  no  account  in  the  ’forties  and  ’fifties,  in  view  of  the 
notoriety  of  Jullien  and  the  prestige  of  Costa,  who  was  both 
an  autocrat  and  a  martinet,  but  they  did  not  loom  nearly  so 
large  in  the  public  eye  as  the  great  singers.  The  balance  of 
repute  has  long  since  been  decisively  redressed  and  the  popular 
conductor  of  to-day  has  no  reason  to  complain  of  lack  of 
homage,  whether  in  the  form  of  applause  or  official  recognition. 

The  low  opinion  which  Punch  entertained  of  contemporary 
architects  and  sculptors  and  of  their  ability  to  design  or  execute 
a  public  building,  a  monument,  or  a  memorial,  has  been  noted 
in  our  brief  survey  of  London.  He  made  an  exception  in 
favour  of  Paxton,  but  does  not  seem  to  have  recognized  the 
genius  of  Alfred  Stevens,  and  here  at  any  rate  was  not  in 
advance  of  public  or  expert  opinion  of  the  time.  Stevens’s 
design  for  the  Wellington  monument  wTas  only  placed  sixth  in 
order  of  merit  by  the  adjudicators  of  the  competition  in  1857, 
and  though  ultimately  the  execution  of  the  monument  was 
entrusted  to  him,  it  was  not  placed  in  the  position  intended  for 
it  till  twenty-seven  years  after  his  death.  As  a  judge  of  painting 
and  painters  Punch  showed  greater  independence,  intelligence 
and  enlightenment.  His  earlier  volumes  abound  in  references 
to  forgotten  names,  but  he  was  at  least  no  indiscriminate  wor- 

294 


T urner  as  Painter  and  Poet 


shipper  of  established  reputation.  In  a  notice  of  the  Suffolk 
Street  Gallery  in  the  autumn  of  1841  he  prints  a  most  trenchant 
criticism  of  Maclise’s  “Sleeping  Beauty”  as  showing  “a  disdain 
for  both  law  and  reason  and  avoiding  an  approximation  to  the 
vulgarity  of  flesh  and  blood  in  his  representation  of  humanity.” 
Landseer  falls  under  his  lash  for  his  “courtier  pictures”  at  the 
R.A.  in  1844,  and  in  the  same  article  we  find  the  first  of  many 
satirical  references  to  Turner’s  poetic  titles.  Punch,  we  regret 
to  say,  wholly  failed  to  recognize  that  a  bad  poet  might  be  a 
very  great  painter.  In  his  “Scamper  through  the  Academy” 
we  read  : — ■ 


No.  77  is  called  Whalers,  by 
J.  M.  W.  Turner,  R.A.,  and 
embodies  one  of  those  singular 
effects  which  are  only  met  with 
in  lobster  salads,  and  in  this 
artist’s  pictures.  Whether  he 
calls  his  pictures  Whalers,  or 
Venice,  or  Morning,  or  Noon,  or 
Night,  it  is  all  the  same ;  for  it 
is  quite  as  easy  to  fancy  it  one 
thing  as  another.  We  give  here 
two  subjects  by  this  celebrated 
artist. 

And  again  : — 

We  had  almost  forgotten  Mr. 
J.  M.  W.  Turner,  R.A.,  and  his 
celebrated  MS.  poem,  the  Fal¬ 
lacies  of  Hope,  to  which  he  con¬ 
stantly  refers  us  as  “  in  former 
years,”  but  on  this  occasion  he 
has  obliged  us  by  simply  men¬ 
tioning  the  title  of  the  poem, 
without  troubling  us  with  an 
extract.  We  will,  however, 
supply  a  motto  to  his  Morning — 
returning  from  the  Ball,  which 
really  seems  to  need  a  little 
explanation ;  and  as  he  is  too 
modest  to  quote  the  Fallacies  of 
Hope,  we  will  quote  it  for  him  : 


VENICE  BY  GASLIGHT- 
GOING  TO  THE  BALL 


MS.  “Fallacies  of  Hope  "(An  Un¬ 
published  Poem). — Turner. 


VENICE  BY  DAYLIGHT,— 
RETURNING  FROM  THE  BALL 

MS.  “  Fallacies  of  Hope"  (An  Un¬ 
published  Poem). — Turner. 


295 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


“Oh!  what  a  scene! — Can  this  be  Venice?  No. 

And  yet  methinks  it  is — because  I  see 
Amid  the  lumps  of  yellow,  red  and  blue, 

Something  which  looks  like  a  Venetian  spire. 

That  dash  of  orange  in  the  background  there 
Bespeaks  ’tis  Morning  !  And  that  little  boat 
(Almost  the  colour  of  tomato  sauce) 

Proclaims  them  now  returning  from  the  ball  ! 

This  in  my  picture,  I  would  fain  convey, 

I  hope  I  do.  Alas  !  what  FALLACY  !  ” 

But  there  is  some  good  “horse  sense  ”  mixed  up  with  frivolity 
in  an  article  on  the  canons  of  criticism  a  few  pages  later  :  — 

GENERAL  MAXIMS 

I.  The  power  of  criticism  is  a  gift,  and  requires  no  previous 
education. 

II.  The  critic  is  greater  than  the  artist. 

III.  The  artist  cannot  know  his  own  meaning.  The  critic’s 
office  is  to  inform  him  of  it. 

IV.  Painting  is  a  mystery.  The  language  of  pictorial  criticism, 
like  its  subject,  should  be  mysterious  and  unintelligible  to  the  vulgar. 
It  is  a  mistake  to  classify  it  as  ordinary  English,  the  rules  of  which 
it  does  not  recognise. 

V.  Approbation  should  be  sparingly  given  :  it  should  be  bestowed 
in  preference  on  what  the  general  eye  condemns.  The  critical 
dignity  must  never  bo  lowered  by  any  explanation  why  a  work  of  art 
is  good  or  bad. 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  PARTICULAR  STYLES 

1.  To  criticise  a  Picture  by  Turner. — Begin  by  protesting  against 
his  extravagance;  then  go  on  with  a  “notwithstanding.”  Combine 
such  phrases  as  " bathed  in  sunlight “flooded  with  summer 
glories “mellow  distance/’  with  a  reference  to  his  earlier  pictures; 
and  wind  up  with  a  rapturous  rhapsody  on  the  philosophy  of  art. 

2.  To  criticise  a  Picture  by  Stanfield. — Begin  by  unqualified 
praise;  then  commence  detracting,  first  on  the  score  of  “sharp, 
hard  outline” ;  then  of  “leathery  texture  ” ;  then  of  “scenic  effect  of 
the  figures”;  and  conclude  by  a  wish  he  had  never  been  a  scene 
painter. 

3.  To  criticise  a  Picture  by  Etty. — Begin  by  delirious  satisfaction 
with  his  “delicious  carnations  ”  and  “mellow  flesh-tones.”  Remark 

296 


Rules  for  Art  Critics 


on  the  skilful  arrangement  of  colour  and  admirable  composition ; 
and  finish  with  a  regret  that  Etty  should  content  himself  with  merely 
painting  from  “the  nude  Academy  model,”  without  troubling  himself 
with  that  for  which  you  had  just  before  praised  him. — N.B.  Never 
mind  the  contradiction. 

4.  To  criticise  a  Picture  by  E.  Landseer. — Here  you  are  bound 
toi  unqualified  commendation.  If  the  subject  be  Prince  Albert’s  Hat 
or  the  Queen’s  Macaw,  some  ingenious  compliment  to  royal  patrons 
is  expected. 

Punch  will  be  happy  to  supply  newspaper  critics  with  similar 
directions  for  “doing  ”  all  the  principal  painters  in  similar  style. 

He  subjoins  some  masterly  specimens  of  artistic  criticism  : — 

The  ” facile  princeps”  of  daily  critics  of  art  (he  of  the  Post )  has 
the  following,  in  a  criticism  of  Herbert’s  Gregory  and  Choristers : — 

“There  is  a  want  of  modulative  melody  in  its  colours  and  mellow¬ 
ness  in  its  hand  (whose?),  pushed  to  an  outrd  simplicity  in  the 


MANNERS  AMD  GVSTOMS  OF  /c  CnGAVSHE'  IN  •  1849  . 


P  EXHYBiTVON.  AT  y  fkOYAL  >ACADEMYC 

.  297 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


plainness  and  ungrammatical  development  of  its  general  effect.  The 
handling-  is  firm  and  simple,  though  in  the  drapery  occasionally  too 
square  and  inflexible.” 

The  neglect  and  rough  handling  of  the  treasures  of  the 
National  Gallery,  where  pictures  presented  to  the  nation  were 
buried  in  a  vault,  is  a  frequent  source  of  indignant  comment 
throughout  this  period — note  for  example  “The  Pictures’ 
Petition”  in  1853.  But  in  another  sense  contemporary  pictures 
were  roughly  handled  by  Punch.  Thus  in  1849  he  puts  in  an 
effective  plea  for  realism  as  against  Wardour  Street  “Old  Clo’,” 
and  appeals  to  artists  to  “paint  human  beings  instead  of  clothes- 
horses.”  There  is  indeed  a  strangely  familiar  ring  in  “Mr. 
Pips’s  ”  notes  on  the  R.A.  Exhibition  of  the  year  :  — 

“The  Exhibition  at  large  I  judge  to  be  a  very  excellent  middling 
one,  many  Pictures  good  in  their  kind,  but  that  Kind  in  very  few 
cases  high.  The  Silks  and  Satins  mostly  painted  to  admiration, 
and  the  Figures  copied  carefully  from  the  Model ;  but  this  do  appear 
too  plainly ;  and  the  action  generally  too  much  like  a  Scene  in  a 
Play.” 

The  same  complaint  recurs  in  the  following  year,  when 
Punch  is  moved,  as  the  result  of  visiting  all  the  exhibitions  then 
open  to  ask  certain  questions  :  — 

Is  painting  a  living  art  in  England  at  this  moment? 

Is  there  a  nineteenth  century? 

Are  there  men  and  women  round  about  us,  doing,  acting, 
suffering? 

Is  the  subject  matter  of  Art,  clothes?  Or  is  it  men  and  women, 
their  actions,  passions  and  sufferings? 

If  Art  is  vital,  should  it  not  somehow  find  food  among  living 
events,  interests,  and  incidents?  Is  our  life,  at  this  day,  so  unideal, 
so  devoid  of  all  sensuous  and  outward  picturesqueness  and  beauty, 
that  for  subjects  to  paint  we  must  needs  go  back  to  the  Guelphs 
and  Ghibellines,  or  to  Charles  the  Second,  or  William  the  Third, 
or  George  the  Second? 

But  much  more  interesting  than  these  generalities — sound 
and  sensible  though  they  are— is  the  first  reference  to  “certain 

298 


The  P.R.B . 


young  friends  of  mine,  calling  themselves — -the  dear  silly 
boys— Pre-Raphaelites  ”  in  the  same  volume.  It  must  cer¬ 
tainly  be  admitted  that  in  his  earlier  criticisms  of  the  P.R.B. ’s 
Mr.  Piinch  managed  to  dissemble  his  affection  pretty  effectively. 
The  initial  compliment  in  the  notice  of  1851  is  largely  discounted 
by  what  follows  :  — 


CONVENT  THOUGHTS 


Our  dear  and  promising  young  friends,  the  Pre-Raphaelites, 
deserve  especial  commendation  for  the  courage  with  which  they  have 
dared  to  tell  some  most  disagreeable  truths  on  their  canvases  this 
year.  Mr.  Ruskin  was  quite  right  in  taking  up  the  cudgels  against 
The  Times  on  this  matter.  The  pictures  of  the  P.R.B.  are  true, 
and  that’s  the  worst  of  them.  Nothing  can  be  more  wonderful  than 
the  truth  of  Collins’s  representation  of  the  Alisma  Plantago,  except 
the  unattractiveness  of  the  demure  lady,  whose  botanical  pursuits 
he  has  recorded  under  the  name  of  CONVENT  THOUGHTS. 


299 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


.  .  .  By  the  size  of  the  lady’s  head  he  no  doubt  meant  to  imply 
her  vast  capacity  of  brains — while  by  the  utter  absence  of  form  and 
limb  under  the  robe,  he  subtly  conveys  that  she  has  given  up  all 
thoughts  of  making  a  figure  in  the  world. 

Mr.  Millais’s  “ Manana  in  the  moated  Grange”  is  obviously 
meant  to  insinuate  a  delicate  excuse  for  the  gentleman  who*  wouldn’t 


MARIANA  IN  THE  MOATED  GRANGE 


come — and  to  show  the  world  the  full  import  of  Tennyson’s 
description  : — 

then  said  she,  “I  am  very  dreary .” 

Anything-  drearier  than  the  lady,  or  brighter  than  her  blue  velvet 
robe,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive. 

But  Punch  makes  the  amende  most  handsomely  in 

1852  : 

Before  two  pictures  of  Mr.  Millais  I  have  spent  the  happiest 
hour  that  I  have  ever  spent  in  the  Royal  Academy  Exhibition.  In 

300 


Commercialism  in  Art 


those  two  pictures  [Ophelia  and  The  Huguenot ]  I  find  more  loving 
observation  of  Nature,  more  mastery  in  the  reproduction  of  her 
forms  and  colours,  more  insight  into  the  sentiment  of  our  greatest 
poet,  a  deeper  feeling  of  human  emotion,  a  happier  choice  of  a 
point  of  interest,  and  a  more  truthful  rendering  of  its  appropriate 
expression,  than  in  all  the  rest  of  those  eight  hundred  squares  of 
canvas  put  together. 

In  1852  Punch  singles  out,  from  a  wilderness  of  niggling 
landscapes  and  highly-coloured  and  meretricious  upholstery, 
Watts’s  “marvellous  chalk  drawing  of  Lord  John  Russell.” 
For  the  rest, 

Art  is  more  of  a  trade  now,  than  it  was  when  Raphael’s  studio 
had  no  other  name  than  bottega — in  English,  shop ;  and  moreover, 
it  is  an  emasculate  and  man-milliner  sort  of  a  trade,  instead  of  one 
demanding  strong  brains,  and  a  brave  and  believing  heart.  It  is  a 
trade  mainly  conversant  with  miserable  things  and  petty  aims — with 
vanity,  and  ostentation  and  vulgarity,  and  sensuality  and  frivolity 
— no  longer  dealing  with  themes  of  prayer  and  praise,  with  the 
glories  of  beatitude,  or  the  horror  of  damnation,  with  the  perpetua¬ 
tion  of  family  dignities  and  devotions,  the  recording  of  great  events, 
the  dignifying  of  public  and  national,  or  the  beautifying  of  private 
and  individual  life.  It  is  a  trade  in  ornament,  and  its  Academy  is 
a  shop,  and  its  Exhibition  a  display  of  rival  wares,  in  which  the 
best  hope  and  the  sole  aim  of  the  many  is  to  catch  the  eye  of  a 
customer;  and  he  who  “  colours  most  highly,  is  sure  to  please.” 

As  a  comprehensive  indictment  of  the  commercialism  and 
triviality  of  Victorian  art  this  leaves  little  to  be  desired.  For 
an  illustration  of  Punch’s  altered  opinion  of  the  P.R.B.’s  it 
may  suffice  to  quote  his  palinode  in  1853  :  — 

Will  you  consider  me  ridiculous  or  blind  when  I  assure  you,  on 
my  honour  as  a  puppet  and  a  public  performer,  that  these  young 
gentlemen  have  written  for  me  this  year  four  of  the  sweetest  and 
deepest  and  most  thoughtful  books  I  have  read  since  I  laid  down 
Mr.  Millais’s  historical  romance  of  The  Huguenot,  last  year?  I 
am  sensible  of  the  omniscience  of  the  daily,  and  some  of  the  weekly 
papers,  and  I  am  aware  that  this  is  an  opinion  which  should  not  be 
breathed  within  ear-shot  of  places  where  they  take  in  The  Times, 
and  the  Morning  Post,  and  the  Examiner.  But  I  am  a  sort  of 

301 


Mr.  Punch  s  PI i story  of  Modern  England 


chartered  libertine,  and  nobody  will  believe  anything-  I  say  is  serious, 
so  I  can  enjoy  the  luxury  of  saying  what  I  feel,  having  no  character 
to  keep  up.  Then  I  tell  you  frankly — not  forgetting  Edwin  Land¬ 
seer’s  two  grand  cantos  of  his  Highland  Poem,  Night  and  Morning 
by  the  Lochside,  or  Stanfield’s  noble  paean-picture  of  the  Battered 
Hull  that  carries  the  body  of  Nelson,  like  a  Viking  with  his  ship 
lor  bier — not  forgetting  these  and  other  picture-books  well  worth 
reading — I  tell  you  that  Hunt’s  Claudio  and  Isabella  is  to  me  the 
book  of  the  collection,  though  it  records  in  colours  what  Shakespeare 
has  written  in  words;  and  that  little,  if  at  all  after  it,  comes  Millais’s 
Order  of  Release,  and  then  the  Strayed  Sheep  and  Proscribed 
Royalist  of  the  same  authors.  I  do  not  mean  to  put  either  after  the 
other,  so  I  bracket  them.” 

In  accepting  the  principles  of  the  P.R.B.’s  Punch  shows  all 
the  zeal  of  the  convert,  as  may  be  gathered  from  the  following 
discourse  published  shortly  afterwards:  — 

Art  must  adapt  itself  to  the  conditions  of  the  time  and  the  life 
it  has  to  reflect. 

See  what  follows. 

If  pictures  are  to  be  hung  in  rooms  instead  of  churches,  and  public 
halls  and  palaces,  they  must  be  small. 

Work  on  a  small  scale,  being  meant  for  the  satisfaction  of  a 
close  eye,  must  be  highly  finished. 

These  conditions  did  not  affect  the  old  painters  and  must  affect  the 
moderns,  and  these  conditions  my  young  friends  the  Pre-Raphaelites 
appear  to  be  conscious  of  and  to  submit  to,  for  which  I  cannot  blame 
them,  but  praise  them  rather,  for  wisely  recognising  the  necessity 
of  adapting  Art  to  surrounding  circumstances. 

What  have  they  recognised  besides  ? 

That  the  truest  representation  and  grandest  creation  may  and 
must  be  combined  by  the  great  artist;  that  as  man  works  in  a  setting 
of  earth  and  air,  all  the  beauties  and  fitness  of  that  setting  must  be 
rendered — tire  more  truthfully  the  better — and  that  the  most  accurate 
rendering  of  these  need  not  detract  from  the  crowning  work — the 
creation  of  the  central  interest  which  sums  itself  in  human  expression. 

The  practice  of  painting  hitherto  has  seemed  to  challenge  the 
possibility  of  combining  these  two  things — human  expression  and 
accurate  representation  of  inanimate  or  lower  nature.  These  young 
men  take  up  the  gauntlet,  and  say,  “We  are  prepared  to  do  this — 
at  least  to  try  and  do  it.”  Their  first-fruits  are  before  the  world, 
and  already  it  has  felt  that  the  undertaking  is  new  and  startling  and 
cheerfully  courageous  :  nay,  more  :  that  to  a  certain  point — and 

302 


Enthusiasm  of  a  Convert 


further  than  might  be  expected  from  such  beardless  champions — it 
has  already  succeeded. 

So  God  speed  these  young  Luthers  of  the  worn-out  Art-faith ; 
they  have  burnt  the  Bull  of  the  Painter-Popes  of  their  time.  They 
have  still  enough  work  before  them,  such  as  their  spiritual  father 
before  them  went  through — devils  of  their  own  creating  to  hurl  their 
palettes  at,  and  many  mighty  magnates  to  wrestle  with,  and  confute, 
and  put  to  shame — -by  trust  in  their  gospel  truth  that  Accurate  Repre¬ 
sentation  is  the  first  requisite  of  Art. 

It  may  be  added  that  when  French  medals  were  conferred 
on  English  artists  in  1855,  Punch  complained  that  the  newer 
school,  i.e.  the  P.R.B.’s,  had  been  overlooked  in  favour  of 
Court  painters  such  as  Landseer.  As  a  set-off  to  these 
examples  of  Punch’s  artistic  and  aesthetic  flair  and  enlighten¬ 
ment,  it  must  be  owned  that  in  1854  had  expressed  high 
praise  for  Frith’s  Ramsgate  Sands  (which  was  bought  by 
the  Queen)  on  account  of  its  realism.  But  it  may  be  accounted 
to  him  for  righteousness  that  he  supported  Lord  Stanhope’s 
National  Portrait  Gallery  Bill  in  1856,  and  entered  a  vigorous 
protest  against  the  vile  “Germanism”  of  the  title  “Art 
Treasures  Exhibition”  instead  of  “Treasures  of  Art”  for  the 
show  at  Manchester  in  1857.  The  more  modern  and  equally 
vile  Germanism  “Concert-Direction  Smith  ”  or  whoever  the 
musical  agent  may  be,  has  apparently  been  washed  out  by  the 
War  of  1914. 

With  all  deductions  and  limitations  Punch’s  record  as  a 
critic  of  the  fine  arts  acquits  him  handsomely  of  the  charge  of 
Philistinism. 


303 


PERSONALITIES 


TOWARDS  the  end  of  the  period  reviewed  in  this 
volume,  Punch  enumerates  his  special  betes  noires 
as  “Humbug,  Cant,  Sleek  Hypocrisy  and  Brazen 
Wrong.”  But  as  has  already  been  abundantly  proved, 
the  list  would  have  to  be  considerably  extended  to  in¬ 
clude  all  the  personages,  notable  and  notorious,  who  came 
under  his  lash.  In  earlier  years  he  is  much  more  specific. 
Thus  in  1850  his  amiable  catalogue  of  the  gentlemen  and 
public  bodies  who  have  kindly  consented  to  furnish  him 
with  game  in  the  ensuing  year  contains  Colonel  Sibthorp,  the 
bearded  reactionary  who  sat  for  Lincoln,  Barry,  the  architect 
of  the  new  Houses  of  Parliament,  all  quack-medicine  vendors, 
tyrants  and  woman-floggers  (the  Tsar  Nicholas  and  Haynau 
are  specially  aimed  at),  Madame  Tussaud,  Lord  Brougham, 
R.A.’s,  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  St.  Paul’s,  Smithfield  and  all 
City  nuisances,  and  all  sinecurists  and  pensionists.  In  1852 
Panizzi  (for  his  long  deferred  catalogue  of  the  British  Museum 
of  which  he  was  Chief  Librarian),  Cardinal  Wiseman,  and 
Lord  Maidstone  are  added,  together  with  Railway  Directors, 
Homoeopathists  and  Protectionists. 

Among  the  various  devices  adopted  to  ventilate  his 
personal  animosity  may  be  noted  Punch’s  list  of  “desirable 
emigrants,”  and  the  ingenious  suggestion  that  “Penal 
Statues”  should  be  erected  to  commemorate  the  misdeeds  of 
great  offenders,  obstructionists,  bigots  and  anti-reformers.  Of 
some  of  Punch’s  butts  it  may  be  said  that  they  were  rescued 
from  oblivion  by  his  satire  and  caricature — Sibthorp  for 
example,  though  he  was  by  no  means  the  merely  reactionary 
buffoon  who  appears  in  Punch.  He  was  eccentric  in  dress  and 
figure,  opposed  all  the  great  measures  of  Reform,  and  was  the 
incarnation  of  ultra-Tory  tradition.  But  he  was  frequently 

304 


PEEL  AS  THE  KNAVE  OF  SPADES 


u— i 


305 


Mr.  Punch's  History  of  Modern  England 


witty,  and  as  truculently  courageous  as  Punch  himself.  Sir 
Peter  Laurie,  Alderman  and  Lord  Mayor  of  London,  stood  to 
Punch  for  all  that  was  pompous,  officious,  meddlesome  and  even 
odious  in  City  administration.  We  rub  our  eyes  on  reading 
in  the  D.N.B.  that  Sir  Peter  throughout  his  public  life  “devoted 
himself  largely  to  schemes  of  social  advancement,  was  a  good 
magistrate  and  a  disciple  of  Joseph  Hume.”  But  the  explana¬ 
tion  of  this  and  other  divergent  records  is  simple  enough. 
Punch  was  often  too  angry  or  enthusiastic  to  be  just  or  dis¬ 
criminating.  He  wrote  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  with  the 
result  that  he  often  had  to  revise  his  verdicts.  We  have  seen 
this  change  in  regard  to  Prince  Albert,  the  Duke  of  Wellington, 
and  Palmerston,  and  already  Punch  had  reluctantly  begun  to 
admit  that  Disraeli  was  a  force  in  politics  and  not  a  mere 
mountebank.  The  bitter  attacks  on  Bulwer  Lytton  as  a  pinch¬ 
beck  writer  and  padded  dandy,  which  abound  in  the  ’forties, 
ended  in  reconciliation  and  amity.  We  have  seen  the  process 
at  work  again  in  the  altered  estimates  of  Jullien.  Bunn  was 
severely  let  alone,  but  only  when  it  was  found  that  the  animal, 
as  in  the  French  saying,  was  so  evil  as  to  defend  himself  when 
he  was  attacked.  Sometimes,  however,  Punch  was  implacable 
and  impenitent.  He  never  appears  to  have  had  a  really  good 
word  to  say  for  Daniel  O’Connell,  but  regarded  Repeal  through¬ 
out  as  a  fraud,  and  the  “  Liberator  ”  as  a  self-seeking  and 
grasping  agitator.  When  Dan  promised  in  1845  to  achieve 
Repeal  in  six  months  or  lay  his  head  on  the  block,  and  did 
neither,  Punch  only  jeered  at  his  “brazen  boasting,”  and  de¬ 
picted  him  later  on  as  the  real  “Potato  Blight”  of  Ireland. 
Impenitence,  too,  marked  his  attitude  towards  both  “Henry  of 
Exeter”  (Dr.  Phillpotts),  Pusey,  and  Wiseman;  and  his  dis¬ 
trust  of  Louis  Napoleon,  after  a  brief  period  of  reticence  imposed 
during  the  Crimean  War,  revived  in  full  force  in  the  later 
’fifties.  We  have  also  seen  the  converse  of  the  process 
described  above  in  the  treatment  of  Cobden  and  Bright,  who 
were  rudely  hauled  down  from  their  pinnacles  when  Punch 
the  peace-loving  Free  Trader  developed  in  the  Crimean  War 
into  the  bellicose  patriot.  The  change  was  made  in  the  con¬ 
trary  direction  with  Peel,  but  the  grace  of  recognition  was 

306 


“Punch's”  Injustice  to  Peel 


THE  ROYAL  RED  RIDING  HOOD 

invidious  parallels,  which  only  stopped  short  ot  Judas.  He 
was  a  “political  eel,”  a  “quack,”  a  “genius  or  Janus,”  and 
there  is  a  curious  foreshadowing  of  the  recriminations  of  our 
own  time,  in  the  way  in  which  Peel,  in  virtue  of  his  inveterate 
policy  of  temporizing,  is  saddled  with  the  watchword  “wait 
awhile.” 

If  “Jenkins”  was  Punch’s  “chief  butler” — in  the  sense  of 
the  supreme  flunkey — Lord  Brougham  was  his  chief  butt 

307 


grievously  impaired  by  its  delay.  Posthumous  honours  are  a 
sorry  reparation  for  continual  abuse  of  the  living,  and  Punch’s 
treatment  of  Peel  is  one  of  the  worst  blots  on  his  scutcheon. 
In  Punch’s  early  volumes  no  abuse  was  too  bad  for  the 
Conservative  statesman.  Even  the  Bible  was  ransacked  for 


Mr.  Punch s  PI i story  of  Modern  England 


throughout  these  years.  And  certainly  no  public  character  in 
the  nineteenth  century  ever  played  better  into  the  hands  of  the 
satirist.  His  nose  in  the  most  literal  sense  lent  a  handle  to  the 
caricaturist.  His  tweed  trousers  figure  as  regularly  in  Punch’s 
portraits  as  the  straw  in  Palmerston’s  mouth— which,  by  the 
way,  is  generally  traced  to  a  trick  that  “Pam”  acquired  in 
visiting  his  stables.  Palmerston’s  nickname  was  “Cupid  ”  from 
his  gallantry  :  the  mythological  parallel  for  Brougham  would 
have  been  Proteus.  One  of  the  earliest  references  to  him  in 
Punch  appears  in  the  composite  Preface  to  Vol.  vi.,  in 
which  each  of  the  contributors  ascribes  to  Punch  his  own 
characteristics,  Brougham  praising  him  for  “forswearing  like  a 
chameleon  every  shade  of  opinion,  when  for  the  moment  he 
has  ceased  to  wear  it.”  Thereafter  the  fun  becomes  fast  and 
furious.  Brougham  is  charged  with  writing  the  flamboyant 
advertisements  of  George  Robins,  a  veritable  Barnum  among 
auctioneers.  His  tweed  trousers  are  explained  as  a  cause  of 
his  always  wanting  to  get  back  to  the  woolsack.  He  is 
credited,  in  virtue  of  his  versatile  activities,  with  the  attempt  to 
discover  perpetual  motion.  Brougham’s  vanity,  craving  for 
office  at  all  costs,  meddlesomeness,  and  subservience  to  the 
Duke  of  Wellington  are  held  up  to  contempt,  and  in  “Rational 
Readings  for  Grown-up  People  ”  (an  early  anticipation  of  the 
Missing  Word  Competition)  we  read  :  — 

If  people  may,  without  rebuke, 

Call  Wellington  the  “Iron  - ,” 

Why  then  we  safely  may  presume 
The  “Brazen  Peer  ”  to  term  Lord  - . 

The  snobbishness  of  Brougham’s  arguments  on  behalf  of 
royal  princes  in  his  Debtors’  Bill  again  infuriates  the  demo¬ 
cratic  Punch ,  who  in  1849  was  even  more  disgusted  by 
Brougham’s  fulsome  championship  of  Radetzky  and  the 
Austrians  when  they  defeated  the  Piedmontese.  But  Punch’s 
hostility  reaches  its  height  in  the  verses  (accompanying  a  cartoon 
which  represents  Brougham  standing  on  his  head)  describing 
the  amazing  farrago  of  inconsistencies  which  composed  the  mind 

308 


309 


QUEEN  CANUTE  REPROVING  HER  COURTIERS 


Mr.  Punch  s  History  of  Modern  England 


of  one  who  was  at  once  a  charlatan  and  encyclopaedist,  a  re¬ 
former  and  a  courtier.  In  the  same  year  Punch  suggests  a 
Bill  should  be  promoted  for  “the  better  behaviour  of  the  erotic 
and  learned  lord,” 

Who’d  rather  mount  the  mountebank’s  stage  than  be  laid  on  the 

shelf, 

Who  does  with  ease  the  difficult  task  of  turning  his  back  on  himself. 

Brougham’s  perversely  obstructive  attitude  towards  the 
Exhibition  of  1851  excited  Punch’s  wrath,  when  he  himself  had 
become  converted  to  the  scheme,  but  already  the  tone  of  the 
paper  had  changed;  and  the  turning  point  was  reached  on  the 
occasion  of  Brougham’s  visit  to  America  in  1850,  when  Punch 
printed  the  following  unofficial  letter  of  introduction  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States  :  — 

To  General  Taylor,  President  of  the  United  States, 

Favoured  by  Henry  Lord  Brougham,  Member  of  the  French 
Institute. 

“  Dear  Taylor, 

“I  have  much  pleasure  in  making  yourself  and  my  friend 
Brougham — the  Brougham  whose  fame  is  not  European  but  world¬ 
wide — personally  acquainted.  With  all  his  little  drolleries,  he  is  an 
excellent  fellow ;  and  with  all  his  oddities,  he  has  worked  like  a 
Hercules  stable-boy  at  our  Augean  Courts  of  Law.  He  has 
cheapened  costs ;  he  has  well-nigh  destroyed  the  race  of  sharp 
attorneys.  Indeed,  if  you  would  seek  Brougham’s  monument,  look 
around  every  attorney’s  office;  and  you  will  not  see  Brougham’s 
picture.” 

Punch  had  already  welcomed  Brougham’s  espousal  of  the 
anti-Sabbatarian  cause,  but  the  full  avowal  of  reconciliation 
is  to  be  found  in  the  following  graceful  verses  printed 
in  1851  :  — 

A  PALINODE 

From  Punch  to  Henry  Brougham 

“  During  the  last  five  or  six  weeks,  he  had  with  the  utmost 
difficulty,  and  against  the  opinion  of  his  medical  advisers,  attended 
the  service  of  their  Lordships’  House.  During  the  last  ten  days  the 

310 


A  Palinode  to  Brougham 


difficulty  had  increased  and  become  more  severe.  In  the  hope  of 
assisting  in  this  great  measure,  in  a  cause  to  which  his  life  had  been 
devoted,  he  had  struggled  to  the  last,  until  he  found  he  could 
struggle  no  more.” — Lord  Brougham's  last  speech  on  Law  Reform 
in  the  House  of  Lords. 

And  is  the  busy  brain  o’erwrought  at  last? 

Has  the  sharp  sword  fretted  the  sheath  so  far? 

Then,  Henry  Brougham,  in  spite  of  all  that’s  past, 

Our  ten  long  years  of  all  but  weekly  war, 

Let  Punch  hold  out  to  you  a  friendly  hand, 

And  speak  what  haply  he  had  left  unspoken 

Had  the  sharp  tongue  lost  naught  of  its  command, 

That  nervous  frame  still  kept  its  spring  unbroken. 

Forgot  the  changes  of  thy  later  years, 

No  more  he  knows  the  Ishmael  once  he  knew, 

Drinking  delights  of  battle  ’mongst  the  Peers — 

Your  hand  ’gainst  all  men,  all  men’s  hands  ’gainst  you. 

He  knows  the  Orator  whose  fearless  tongue 
Lashed  into  infamy  and  endless  scorn 

The  wretches  who  their  blackening  scandal  flung 
Upon  a  Queen — of  women  most  forlorn. 

He  knows  the  lover  of  his  kind,  who  stood 
Chief  of  the  banded  few  who  dared  to  brave 

The  accursed  traffickers  in  negro  blood, 

And  struck  his  heaviest  fetter  from  the  slave ; 

The  Statesman  who,  in  a  less  happy  hour 

Than  this,  maintained  man’s  right  to  read  and  know, 

And  gave  the  keys  of  knowledge  and  of  power 
With  equal  hand  alike  to  high  and  low  ; 

The  Lawyer  who,  unwarped  by  private  aims, 

Denounced  the  Law’s  abuse,  chicane,  delay  : 

The  Chancellor  who  settled  century’s  claims, 

And  swept  an  age’s  dense  arrears  away ; 

The  man  whose  name  men  read  even  as  they  run, 

On  every  landmark  the  world’s  course  along, 

That  speaks  to  us  of  a  great  battle  won 
Over  untruth,  or  prejudice  or  wrong. 

3ll 


Mr.  Punch s  History  of  Modern  England 


Remembering  this,  full  sad  I  am  to  hear 
That  voice  which  loudest  in  the  combat  rung 
Now  weak  and  low  and  sorrowful  of  cheer, 

To  see  that  arm  of  battle  all  unstrung. 

And  so,  even  as  a  warrior  after  fight 

Thinks  of  a  noble  foe,  now  wounded  sore, 

I  think  of  thee,  and  of  thine  ancient  might, 

And  hold  a  hand  out,  armed  for  strife  no  more. 

This  is  a  fine  summary  of  Brougham’s  services  as  the  friend 
of  humanity,  the  champion  of  free  speech  and  popular  education, 
and  the  great  legal  reformer,  erring,  if  at  all,  in  the  over- 
generous  estimate  of  his  disinterestedness  as  an  advocate. 
Brougham  recovered  from  his  breakdown  and  lived  for  seven¬ 
teen  years  longer — years  crowded  with  multifarious  activities, 
legal,  scientific,  literary.  He  was,  in  many  -ways,  a  unique 
figure  in  public  life,  though,  when  the  lives  of  the  Lord  Chan¬ 
cellors  are  brought  up  to  date  in  the  next  generation,  he  will 
not  be  able  to  avoid  rivalry  on  the  score  of  early  advancement, 
versatility,  vituperation,  and  vulgarity. 

Sir  James  Graham  is  not  mentioned  nearly  so  often  as 
Brougham,  but  in  respect  of  concentrated  hostility  of  criticism 
he  occupies  the  first  place  amongst  Punch’s  pet  aversions.  No 
cartoon  in  this  period  held  up  any  politician  to  greater  contempt 
and  ridicule  than  the  repulsive  picture  of  the  Home  Secretary  as 
“Peel’s  Dirty  Little  Boy,”  who  was  “always  in  trouble.”  The 
predominating  cause  of  Punch’s  resentment  was  the  historic 
episode  of  the  opening  of  suspect  correspondence,  notably 
that  of  Mazzini;  but  Sir  James  Graham  could  do  nothing 
right  in  Punch’s  view  :  nihil  tetigit  quod  non  foedavit. 

Peter  Borthwick,  the  advocate  of  the  slave-owners,  M.P.  for 
Evesham  from  1835  to  1847,  and  editor  of  the  Morning  Post 
from  1850  till  his  death  in  1852,  was  no  favourite  of  Punch.  He 
was,  however,  as  the  date  shows,  not  editorially  responsible  for 
“Jenkins”;  and  by  introducing  the  Borthwick  clause  into  the 
Poor  Law  Amendment  Bill  in  1847,  under  which  married  couples 
over  the  age  of  sixty  were  not,  as  theretofore,  separated  when 
they  entered  the  poor-house,  he  so  far  expiated  his  pro-slavery 

312 


“Punch”  Designs  a  Statue 


heresies  that  Punch  granted  him  “six  months  immunity  from 
ridicule  for  this  good  act.”  Punch’s  antipathy  to  Urquhart  is 
curious,  for  they  were  united  in  their  Russophobia.  But  Punch 
was  often  intolerant  of  competitors,  and  he  was  never  an  ex¬ 
travagant  Turcophil  as  Urquhart  was. 


MR.  PUNCH’S  DESIGN  FOR  A  STATUE  TO  MISS 
NIGHTINGALE 

If  a  paper,  like  a  man,  is  to  be  fairly  judged  by  its  heroes 
and  favourites.  Punch  emerges  from  the  test  with  considerable 
credit.  Most  of  them  have  been  mentioned  incidentally  else- 

313 


Mr.  Punch' s  History  of  Modern  England 


where,  and  the  list1  might  easily  be  added  to.  Let  it  suffice, 
however,  to  give  the  names  of  Jenner,  Stephenson,  Rowland 
Hill,  Paxton,  Faraday,  and  Livingstone;  Mazzini  and  Kossuth; 
Jenny  Lind,  Florence  Nightingale,  and  William  Russell,  of 
whose  lectures  Punch  wrote  an  enthusiastic  and  well-merited 
encomium  in  the  summer  of  1857. 

1  It  i3  perhaps  worthy  of  note  that  with  the  exception  of  Paxton  none  of 
those  mentioned  belonged  to  the  decorated  or  decorative  classes.  Stephenson 
refused  a  knighthood  in  1850;  it  was  not  bestowed  on  William  Russell  till 
more  than  forty  years  later.  Rowland  Hill  was  made  a  K.C.B.  in  i860. 


3H 


A  complete  Index  will  be  found  in  the 
Fourth  Volume. 


Printed  by 

Cassell  &  Company,  Limited,  La  Belle  Sauvage, 
London,  E.C.4 
F.100.521 


3  3125  01255  1574 


